The studies in this review didn’t all agree with each other, but the reason for the disagreement wasn’t because of differences in how old the people were, how long they were followed, or how good the studies were.
Scientific Claim
The heterogeneity among studies included in the meta-analysis was statistically significant for both coronary heart disease (P=0.04) and stroke (P=0.01), but could not be explained by differences in age, sex, study quality, follow-up duration, or outcome confirmation methods.
Original Statement
“We documented heterogeneity among studies that examined saturated fat in relation to CHD (P=0.04) or stroke (P=0.01). However, age (P=0.16 for CHD, 0.40 for stroke), sex (P=0.52 for CHD, 0.25 for stroke), sample size (P=0.44 for CHD, 0.71 for stroke), duration of follow-up (P=0.53 for CHD, 0.42 for stroke), medical record review for CVD outcome confirmation (P=0.17 for CHD, 0.30 for stroke), and study quality as assessed by a quality score (P=0.62 for CHD, 0.70 for stroke) could not explain this heterogeneity.”
Evidence Quality Assessment
Claim Status
appropriately stated
Study Design Support
Design supports claim
Appropriate Language Strength
association
Can only show association/correlation
Assessment Explanation
The claim accurately reports a statistical result (P-values) and the study’s own analysis of potential moderators. No causal interpretation is implied, which is appropriate.
Evidence from Studies
Supporting (1)
Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease
The study found that different results across studies couldn’t be explained by things like age, sex, or how well the studies were done, which matches the claim.