Saturated Fat2014 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Chowdhury R, Warnakula S, Kunutsor S, Crowe F, Ward HA, Johnson L, et al. Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:398-406.

However, excluding the SDHS for trans-fat is probably unjustified: http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707/rr/631590

Furthermore, it is possible that trans-fat intake was higher in the control groups in all trials:

Excluding studies that analyzed less than 50 total coronary outcomes

Sensitivity analysis on the 3 available trials reporting at least 100 CHD events (potentially less prone to selective publication bias and provides greater precision): 0.92 (0.76-1.12)

Heterogeneity: Type Of Supplement (Specific vs. Mixed)

Similar to: Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Leelarthaepin B, et al. Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:e8707.

Conclusion:

Extra notes

• The relative risks for some individual cohort studies differ from Siri-Tarino’s: Siri-tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(3):535-46. • This is either due to more updated data, use of different data from

the same study, or different statistical methods. • For example, Siri-Tarino gives a relative risk of 1.37 (1.17, 1.65) for the

Health and Lifestyle Survey in contrast to Chowdhury’s 1.04 (0.97, 1.11). In this case the difference is probably due to different statistical methods.

END