Evidence mapPaperPMID 39813010Full record

SynthesisNutrition reviews2025

Effect of Plant Versus Animal Protein on Muscle Mass, Strength, Physical Performance, and Sarcopenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Rachel J Reid-McCann, Sarah F Brennan, Nicola A Ward, Danielle Logan, Michelle C McKinley, Claire T McEvoy

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrition reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rachel J Reid-McCannNutrition and Metabolism Research Group, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4080-9050
Sarah F BrennanNutrition and Metabolism Research Group, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9893-3938
Nicola A WardNutrition and Metabolism Research Group, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4591-8443
Danielle LoganNutrition and Metabolism Research Group, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3932-3654
Michelle C McKinleyNutrition and Metabolism Research Group, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3386-1504
Claire T McEvoyNutrition and Metabolism Research Group, Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BJ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8512-3293

Funding

Northern Ireland Department for the Economy
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextDietary protein is recommended for sarcopenia-a debilitating condition of age-related loss of muscle mass and strength that affects 27% of older adults. The effects of protein on muscle health may depend on protein quality.

objectiveThe aim was to synthesize randomized controlled trial (RCT) data comparing plant with animal protein for muscle health. DATA SOURCES: Forty-three eligible RCTs were sourced from Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases. DATA EXTRACTION: Four reviewers (R.J.R.-M., S.F.B., N.A.W., D.L.) extracted data from RCTs (study setting, population, intervention characteristics, outcomes, summary statistics) and conducted quality assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. DATA ANALYSIS: Standardized mean differences (SMDs) (95% CIs) were combined using a random-effects meta-analysis and forest plots were generated. I2 statistics were calculated to test for statistical heterogeneity.

conclusionThirty RCTs (70%) were eligible for meta-analysis and all examined muscle mass outcomes. Compared with animal protein, plant protein resulted in lower muscle mass following the intervention (SMD = -0.20; 95% CI: -0.37, -0.03; P = .02), with stronger effects in younger (<60 years; SMD = -0.20; 95% CI: -0.37, -0.03; P = .02) than in older (≥60 years; SMD = -0.05; 95% CI: -0.32, 0.23; P = .74) adults. There was no pooled effect difference between soy and milk protein for muscle mass (SMD = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.16; P = .80) (n = 17 RCTs), yet animal protein improved muscle mass compared with non-soy plant proteins (rice, chia, oat, and potato; SMD = -0.58; 95% CI: -1.06, -0.09; P = .02) (n = 5 RCTs) and plant-based diets (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI: -0.91, -0.11; P = .01) (n = 7 RCTs). No significant difference was found between plant or animal protein for muscle strength (n = 14 RCTs) or physical performance (n = 5 RCTs). No trials examined sarcopenia as an outcome. Animal protein may have a small beneficial effect over non-soy plant protein for muscle mass; however, research into a wider range of plant proteins and diets is needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020188658.

Indexed as

Animal Proteins, DietaryDietary ProteinsMuscle, SkeletalMuscle StrengthPhysical Functional PerformancePlant Proteins, DietarySarcopeniaAgedAnimalsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnimal Proteins, DietaryDietary ProteinsPlant Proteins, Dietarydietary proteinmeta-analysismuscle massphysical performancesarcopeniastrength

Identifiers

PMID39813010
PMCPMC12166177

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.