TABLE 2.

Subgroup analysis for effect of beef, compared with less or no beef intake, on systolic and diastolic blood pressure values.

Outcome and subgroups	Effect estimate		I2 (%)	P
	SMD1	95% CI
Systolic blood pressure
Study design
Crossover	−0.05	−0.23, 0.13	0	0.56
Parallel	0.04	−0.27, 0.36	51	0.79
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.3, P = 0.597)
Body weight status
Healthy	<3 comparisons
Healthy/overweight	<3 comparisons
Overweight/obese	0.02	−0.20, 0.24	34	0.86
Mixed weights	<3 comparisons
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 1.0, P = 0.622)
Health risk2
Healthy	−0.07	−0.46, 0.32	60	0.74
Metabolic dysfunction	0.02	−0.15, 0.18	0	0.86
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.1, P = 0.707)
Amount of beef (median split)
>127 g	0.06	−0.31, 0.42	44	0.76
≤127 g	−0.02	−0.27, 0.23	45	0.89
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.1, P = 0.741)
Comparator diet
Animal protein	−0.02	−0.23, 0.19	8	0.86
Plant protein	<3 comparisons
Carbohydrate	−0.10	−0.30, 0.10	0	0.33
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 3.3, P = 0.192)
Study duration (median split)
≤42 d	0.02	−0.17, 0.21	0	0.85
>42 d	−0.09	−0.34, 0.15	31	0.45
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.5, P = 0.478)
Attrition
<25%	−0.02	−0.23, 0.19	8	0.86
≥25%	−0.03	−0.27, 0.22	38	0.84
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.00, P = 0.966)
Study quality
Low RoB	−0.03	−0.22, 0.15	12	0.73
Some concerns or high RoB	0.01	−0.32, 0.34	44	0.96
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.1, P = 0.827)
Funding source
Beef industry	−0.04	−0.19, 0.12	0	0.64
Nonbeef source	<3 comparisons
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.2, P = 0.692)
Diastolic blood pressure
Study design
Crossover	0.05	−0.13, 0.23	0	0.59
Parallel	−0.23	−0.46, −0.01	8	0.04
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 3.7, P = 0.05)
Body weight status
Healthy	<3 comparisons
Healthy/overweight	<3 comparisons
Overweight/obese	−0.16	−0.36, 0.04	17	0.11
Mixed weights	<3 comparisons
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 2.9, P = 0.237)
Health risk2
Healthy	−0.09	−0.51, 0.32	64	0.65
Metabolic dysfunction	−0.05	−0.22, 0.12	0	0.54
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.0, P = 0.855)
Amount of beef (median split)
>127 g	0.10	−0.16, 0.36	0	0.45
≤127 g	−0.18	−0.42, 0.06	38	0.14
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 2.4, P = 0.122)
Comparator diet
Animal protein	0.06	−0.14, 0.26	0	0.53
Plant protein	<3 comparisons
Carbohydrate	−0.23	−0.51, 0.04	44	0.09
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 3.0, P = 0.224)
Study duration (median split)
≤42 d	−0.00	−0.19, 0.19	0	0.97
>42 d	−0.12	−0.45, 0.21	60	0.48
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.4, P = 0.549)
Attrition
<25%	0.06	−0.14, 0.26	0	0.53
≥25%	−0.20	−0.43, 0.04	28	0.10
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 2.77, P = 0.096)
Study quality
Low RoB	−0.09	−0.30, 0.12	33	0.41
Some concerns or high RoB	−0.05	−0.36, 0.27	40	0.78
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 0.1, P = 0.818)
Funding source
Beef industry	−0.13	−0.32, 0.06	30	0.18
Nonbeef source	<3 comparisons
Between-subgroup heterogeneity (Q = 2.0, P = 0.162)

Abbreviations: RoB, risk of bias; SMD, standardized mean difference.

Italic value indicates statistically significant findings.

¹Effect estimates and P values from random-effect models.

²Metabolic dysfunction = participants recruited had ≥1 cardiometabolic risk factor (e.g., hyperlipidemia, hypertension) or had conditions of metabolic syndrome, prediabetes, or type 2 diabetes.