Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21674008›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2011

Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Doris S M Chan, Rosa Lau, Dagfinn Aune, Rui Vieira, Darren C Greenwood, Ellen Kampman, Teresa Norat

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 358 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
358citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
49.3field-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

358 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 883 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. Primary and Secondary Prevention Interventions to Reduce Risk Factors Associated with Colorectal Cancer in High-Risk Groups: a Systematic Literature Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. XRCC2 Arg188His polymorphism and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2021
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

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

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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Doris S M ChanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rosa Lau
Dagfinn Aune
Rui Vieira
Darren C Greenwood
Ellen Kampman
Teresa Norat
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evidence that red and processed meat influences colorectal carcinogenesis was judged convincing in the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research report. Since then, ten prospective studies have published new results. Here we update the evidence from prospective studies and explore whether there is a non-linear association of red and processed meats with colorectal cancer risk. METHODS AND

findingsRelevant prospective studies were identified in PubMed until March 2011. For each study, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random-effects model, weighting for the inverse of the variance, in highest versus lowest intake comparison, and dose-response meta-analyses. Red and processed meats intake was associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. The summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for the highest versus the lowest intake was 1.22 (95% CI  =  1.11-1.34) and the RR for every 100 g/day increase was 1.14 (95% CI  =  1.04-1.24). Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk. When analyzed separately, colorectal cancer risk was related to intake of fresh red meat (RR(for 100 g/day increase)  =  1.17, 95% CI  =  1.05-1.31) and processed meat (RR (for 50 g/day increase)  =  1.18, 95% CI  =  1.10-1.28). Similar results were observed for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, no significant associations were observed.

conclusionsHigh intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Indexed as

Food HandlingPigmentationColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMeatProspective StudiesPublication Bias

Identifiers

PMID21674008
PMCPMC3108955
OpenAlexW2072090020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.