Table 2 Strength of the evidence for the relationship between unprocessed red meat consumption and the six health outcomes analyzed

From: Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study

Health outcome

ROS

Average BPRF

Star rating

RR at 50 g d−1 (conservative 95% UI)

RR at 100 g d−1 (conservative 95% UI)

Colorectal cancer

0.06

1.06

2 stars

1.3 (1.01, 1.64)

1.37 (1.01, 1.78)

Breast cancer

0.03

1.03

2 stars

1.26 (0.98, 1.56)

1.26 (0.98, 1.56)

IHD

0.01

1.01

2 stars

1.09 (0.99, 1.18)

1.12 (0.99, 1.25)

Type 2 diabetes

0.01

1.01

2 stars

1.14 (0.97, 1.32)

1.23 (0.96, 1.52)

Ischemic stroke

−0.02

0.98

1 star

1.05 (0.97, 1.12)

1.15 (0.93, 1.4)

Hemorrhagic stroke

−0.13

1.14

1 star

0.9 (0.64, 1.26)

0.87 (0.56, 1.35)

  1. The ROS represents the signed value of the log BPRF averaged across the 15th to 85th percentiles of exposure: the lower (if harmful) or higher (if protective) uncertainty interval—inclusive of between-study heterogeneity—for the RR curve for each risk–outcome pair. ROSs are directly comparable across outcomes and each risk–outcome pair receives an ROS based on the final formulation of the risk curve. For hemorrhagic stroke, the ROS reflects a protective effect of red meat consumption, whereas for the other outcomes it reflects a harmful effect. Negative ROSs indicate that a conservative interpretation of the available evidence suggests there may be no association between risk and outcome. For ease of interpretation, we have transformed the ROS and BPRF into a star rating (1–5), with a higher rating representing a larger effect and stronger evidence.
Back to article page