Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18076279›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2007

A prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk.

Amanda J Cross, Michael F Leitzmann, Mitchell H Gail, Albert R Hollenbeck, Arthur Schatzkin, Rashmi Sinha

Open access · goldAbstract readCommentMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 185 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
185citing papers in PubMed, 23 pooled it
25.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

185 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 473 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Meta-analyses of colorectal cancer risk factors.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2013
    Pooled it
  20. Meat intake and risk of bladder cancer: a meta-analysis.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2012
    Pooled it

125 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amanda J CrossNutritional Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America. crossa@mail.nih.gov
Michael F Leitzmann
Mitchell H Gail
Albert R Hollenbeck
Arthur Schatzkin
Rashmi Sinha
National Cancer Institute · USNational Institutes of Health · USAARP · US

Funding

Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer in the AARP CohortZ01CP010196 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI SCHATZKIN, ARTHUR · 2008 to 2008
$1.5M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRed meat and processed meat have been associated with carcinogenesis at several anatomic sites, but no prospective study has examined meat intake in relation to a range of malignancies. We investigated whether red or processed meat intake increases cancer risk at a variety of sites. METHODS AND

findingsThe National Institutes of Health (NIH)-AARP (formerly the American Association for Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study is a cohort of approximately 500,000 people aged 50-71 y at baseline (1995-1996). Meat intake was estimated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals within quintiles of red and processed meat intake. During up to 8.2 y of follow-up, 53,396 incident cancers were ascertained. Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20% to 60%) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake. Furthermore, individuals in the highest quintile of processed meat intake had a 20% elevated risk for colorectal and a 16% elevated risk for lung cancer.

conclusionsBoth red and processed meat intakes were positively associated with cancers of the colorectum and lung; furthermore, red meat intake was associated with an elevated risk for cancers of the esophagus and liver.

Indexed as

AgedColorectal NeoplasmsEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceLiver NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsMaleMeatMeat ProductsMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNutrition AssessmentProportional Hazards Models

Identifiers

PMID18076279
PMCPMC2121107
OpenAlexW2131853283

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.