Evidence Hub

Isocaloric substitution of animal protein with plant protein and its impact on all-cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Gabriel Barrantes-Espinola, Piero Alberti, Emanuel Jaramillo-Morales, A. Rodríguez, M. López-Moreno

Clinical Nutrition, 2026

1,036,799 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Epidemiological evidence indicates that isocaloric substitution of animal-protein sources with plant-protein sources may reduce all-cause mortality (ACM), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), and cancer mortality (CM). However, the impact of substituting different proportions of animal-protein with plant-protein remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of isocaloric substitution of animal-protein with plant-protein at two levels-3% and 5% of total caloric value (TCV)-on ACM, CVM and CM, and to assess whether these effects differ between substitution levels.

METHODS

Three databases-PubMed, Embase and Web of Science-were systematically searched up to December 2025. Prospective observational studies with multivariable adjustment evaluating isocaloric substitution of 3% and 5% of animal-protein with plant-protein on ACM, CVM and CM were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-E. Hazard ratios (HR) for mortality outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed with Tau2, Chi2 and I2., Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.

RESULTS

Nine cohort studies including 1,036,799 participants and 19, 904,866 person-years of follow-up were analyzed. Pooled results from studies examining 3% and 5% substitution of TCV from animal-protein with plant-protein significantly reduced ACM (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.87-0.94; p < 0.00001; I2 = 77%) with no significant difference between…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,036,799 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free