SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2014
Meat consumption is associated with esophageal cancer risk in a meat- and cancer-histological-type dependent manner.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lifestyle, WCRF/AICR Recommendations, and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Risk: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- Red and processed meat consumption and esophageal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Pooled it
- Processed meat intake and chronic disease morbidity and mortality: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A summary of meat intakes and health burdens.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2018Pooled it
- Modifiable factors and esophageal cancer: a systematic review of published meta-analyses.Journal of gastroenterology · 2018Pooled it
- An update of the WCRF/AICR systematic literature review and meta-analysis on dietary and anthropometric factors and esophageal cancer risk.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2017Pooled it
- Citrus Fruit Intake Substantially Reduces the Risk of Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies.Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension diet retains effectiveness to reduce blood pressure when lean pork is substituted for chicken and fish as the predominant source of protein.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2015Trial
- A recipe for a disaster: food, climate change, and cancer.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Review
- CD36: The Bridge between Lipids and Tumors.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Poultry Consumption and Human Health: How Much Is Really Known? A Systematically Searched Scoping Review and Research Perspective.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Meat consumption and risk of esophageal and gastric cancer in the Golestan Cohort Study, Iran.International journal of cancer · 2022Article
- CircGOT1 promotes cell proliferation, mobility, and glycolysis-mediated cisplatin resistance via inhibiting its host gene GOT1 in esophageal squamous cell cancer.Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.) · 2022Article
- Recent development in the preservation effect of lactic acid bacteria and essential oils on chicken and seafood products.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Processed Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of the Constraints of Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies.Nutrients · 2021Review
- Article
- Gastrointestinal cancers in China, the USA, and Europe.Gastroenterology report · 2021Review
- 10-Year Trends in Dietary Intakes in the High- and Low-Risk Areas for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Ecological Study in Northern Iran.Middle East journal of digestive diseases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of meat intake and esophageal cancer risk, with subgroup analyses based on meat type and histological type of cancer.
aimsThe purpose of this study was to investigate the association between meat intake and risk of esophageal cancer.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (April 2013) for cohort and case-control studies that assessed meat intake and esophageal cancer risk. Random-effect or fixed-effect models were used to pool relative risks (RRs) from individual studies with heterogeneity and publication bias analyses carried out. Seven cohort and 28 case-control studies were included.
resultsThe summary RRs for esophageal cancer for the highest versus lowest consumption categories were 1.19 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.46) for total meat, 1.55 (95 % CI 1.22-1.96) for red meat, 1.33 (95 % CI 1.04-1.69) for processed meat, 0.72 (95 % CI 0.60-0.86) for white meat, 0.83 (95 % CI 0.72-0.96) for poultry, and 0.95 (95 % CI 0.76-1.19) for fish. When striated by histological subtype, positive associations were seen among esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and red meat, white meat and poultry, and esophageal adenocarcinoma with total meat and processed meat.
conclusionsMeat consumption is associated with esophageal cancer risk, which depends on meat type and histological type of esophageal cancer. High intake of red meat and low intake of poultry are associated with an increased risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. High meat intake, especially processed meat, is likely to increase esophageal adenocarcinoma risk. And fish consumption may not be associated with incidence of esophageal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.