Findings on saturated fat in a 2014 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

1. Saturated Fat
2014 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2. 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.

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

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

14. Excluding studies that analyzed less than 50 total coronary outcomes

15. 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)

16. Heterogeneity: Type Of Supplement (Specific vs. Mixed)

17. 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.

18. Conclusion:

19. 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.

20. END