Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25941850›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American College of Nutrition2015

Red Meat and Colorectal Cancer: A Quantitative Update on the State of the Epidemiologic Science.

Dominik D Alexander, Douglas L Weed, Paula E Miller, Muhima A Mohamed

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American College of Nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.9field-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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Associations Between Prescreening Dietary Patterns and Longitudinal Colonoscopy Outcomes in Veterans.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2025
    Article
  7. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: A review with special emphasis on India.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  8. Recalibrating the Genetics and Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer Consortium Environmental Risk Score for Use in US Veterans.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Dominik D Alexandera EpidStat Institute , Evergreen , Colorado.
Douglas L Weedc DLW Consulting Services , Salt Lake City , Utah.
Paula E Millerb EpidStat Institute , Ann Arbor , Michigan.
Muhima A Mohamedd Doctors Without Borders , Bellevue , Washington.
Michigan United · USMédecins Sans Frontières · USProActive Memory Services (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential relationship between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) has been the subject of scientific debate. Given the high degree of resulting uncertainty, our objective was to update the state of the science by conducting a systematic quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic literature. Specifically, we updated and expanded our previous meta-analysis by integrating data from new prospective cohort studies and conducting a broader evaluation of the relative risk estimates by specific intake categories. Data from 27 independent prospective cohort studies were meta-analyzed using random-effects models, and sources of potential heterogeneity were examined through subgroup and sensitivity analyses. In addition, a comprehensive evaluation of potential dose-response patterns was conducted. In the meta-analysis of all cohorts, a weakly elevated summary relative risk was observed (1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19); however, statistically significant heterogeneity was present. In general, summary associations were attenuated (closer to the null and less heterogeneous) in models that isolated fresh red meat (from processed meat), adjusted for more relevant factors, analyzed women only, and were conducted in countries outside of the United States. Furthermore, no clear patterns of dose-response were apparent. In conclusion, the state of the epidemiologic science on red meat consumption and CRC is best described in terms of weak associations, heterogeneity, an inability to disentangle effects from other dietary and lifestyle factors, lack of a clear dose-response effect, and weakening evidence over time. KEY TEACHING POINTS: •The role of red meat consumption in colorectal cancer risk has been widely contested among the scientific community.•In the current meta-analysis of red meat intake and colorectal cancer, we comprehensively examined associations by creating numerous sub-group stratifications, conducting extensive sensitivity analyses, and evaluating dose-response using several different methods.•Overall, all summary associations were weak in magnitude with no clear dose-response patterns.•Interpretation of findings from epidemiologic studies investigating diet and health outcomes involves numerous methodological considerations, such as accurately measuring food intake, dietary pattern differences across populations, food definitions, outcome classifications, bias and confounding, multicollinearity, biological mechanisms, genetic variation in metabolizing enzymes, and differences in analytical metrics and statistical testing parameters.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesCohort StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsDietFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMEDLINEProspective StudiesRed MeatRiskRisk Factorscancercohort studiescolorectal cancerepidemiologymeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID25941850
PMCPMC4673592
OpenAlexW1929917746

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.