Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/5088
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWang, Yu-
dc.contributor.authorUffelman, Cassi N.-
dc.contributor.authorBergia, Robert E.-
dc.contributor.authorClark, Caroline M.-
dc.contributor.authorReed, Jason B.-
dc.contributor.authorCross, Tzu-Wen L.-
dc.contributor.authorLindemann, Stephen R.-
dc.contributor.authorTang, Minghua-
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Wayne W.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-17T05:00:31Z-
dc.date.available2023-06-17T05:00:31Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.issn2161-8313-
dc.identifier.urihttp://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/5088-
dc.description.abstractEmerging research indicates the importance of gut microbiota in mediating the relationship between meat intake and human health outcomes. We aimed to assess the state of available scientific literature on meat intake and gut microbiota in humans (PROSPERO, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42020135649). We first conducted a scoping review to identify observational and interventional studies on this topic. Searches were performed for English language articles using PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and CINAHL (Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases from inception to August 2021 and using keywords related to meat (inclusive of mammalian, avian, and aquatic subtypes) and gut microbiota. Of 14,680 records, 85 eligible articles were included in the scoping review, comprising 57 observational and 28 interventional studies. One prospective observational study and 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified in adults without diagnosed disease. We included the 13 RCTs, comprising 18 comparisons, in the systematic review to assess the effects of higher and lower intakes of total meat and meat subtypes on the gut microbiota composition. The bacterial composition was differentially affected by consuming diets with and without meat or with varied meat subtypes. For example, higher meat intake tended to decrease population sizes of genera Anerostipes and Faecalibacterium, but it increased the population size of Roseburia across studies. However, the magnitude and directionality of most microbial responses varied, with inconsistent patterns of responses across studies. The data were insufficient for comparison within or between meat subtypes. The paucity of research, especially among meat subtypes, and heterogeneity of findings underscore the need for more well-designed prospective studies and full-feeding RCTs to address the relationships between and effects of consuming total meat and meat subtypes on gut microbiota, respectively.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAdvances in Nutritionen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesReview;215-237-
dc.subjectred meat, , , , ,en_US
dc.subjectpoultryen_US
dc.subjectfishen_US
dc.subjectseafooden_US
dc.subjectanimal-based protein sourcesen_US
dc.subjectdietary patternen_US
dc.titleMeat Consumption and Gut Microbiota: a Scoping Review of Literature and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Adultsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:VOL 14 NO 2 (2023)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
215-237.pdf1.62 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.