Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17638104›Full record

SynthesisCancer causes & control : CCC2007

Consumption of animal foods and endometrial cancer risk: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Elisa V Bandera, Lawrence H Kushi, Dirk F Moore, Dina M Gifkins, Marjorie L McCullough

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. A summary of meat intakes and health burdens.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Meat intake and risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2012
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. CD36: The Bridge between Lipids and Tumors.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Elisa V BanderaRobert Wood Johnson Medical School, The Cancer Institute of New Jersey, 195 Little Albany St, 5568, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA. elisa.bandera@umdnj.edu
Lawrence H Kushi
Dirk F Moore
Dina M Gifkins
Marjorie L McCullough
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USAmerican Cancer Society · USKaiser Permanente · US

Funding

Phytoestrogens, alcohol, and endometrial cancer riskK07CA095666 · NCI · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI BANDERA, ELISA V · 2003 to 2007
$672k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA095666
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article summarizes and quantifies the current evidence relating dietary intake of animal products and endometrial cancer. Literature searches were conducted to identify peer-reviewed manuscripts published up to December 2006. Twenty-two manuscripts from three cohort studies and 16 case-control studies were identified. One of these cohort studies evaluated only fried meat and another only milk consumption; they were not included in our meta-analyses. The third cohort study identified did not present exposure levels and could not be included in dose-response meta-analysis. This cohort study did not show an association with meat or red meat consumption. Random-effects dose-response summary estimates for case-control studies evaluating these foods were 1.26 (95% CI: 1.03-1.54) per 100 g/day of total meat, 1.51 (95% CI: 1.19-1.93) per 100 g/day of red meat, 1.03 (95% CI: 0.32-3.28) per 100 g/day of poultry, 1.04 (95% CI: 0.55-1.98) per 100 g/day of fish, and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93-1.01) per serving of dairy. Our meta-analysis, based on case-control data, suggests that meat consumption, particularly red meat, increases endometrial cancer risk. The current literature does not support an association with dairy products, while the evidence is inconsistent for poultry, fish, and eggs. More studies, particularly prospective studies, are needed.

Indexed as

DietAnimalsCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesDairy ProductsEggsEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleFishesHumansMeatMilkPoultry

Identifiers

PMID17638104
PMCPMC2592095
OpenAlexW2158596917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.