SynthesisPloS one2015
Processed and Unprocessed Red Meat and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: Analysis by Tumor Location and Modification by Time.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 6 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
73 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 143 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective studies.GeroScience · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of fermented foods consumption on gastrointestinal wellbeing in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Association of meat consumption with the risk of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Adult-Attained Height and Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Cohort Study, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Processed meat intake and incidence of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2020Pooled it
- Effects of meat-based, meat-based with α-tocopherol, and pesco-vegetarian diets on biomarkers associated with colorectal cancer risk: a randomized behavioral intervention trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Substituting meat for mycoprotein reduces genotoxicity and increases the abundance of beneficial microbes in the gut: Mycomeat, a randomised crossover control trial.European journal of nutrition · 2023Trial
- Heme iron intake and the risk of colorectal cancer: a prospective analysis of the modifying role of calcium.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Article
- Germline Predisposition to Oncogenic Alkylating Damage in Colorectal Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Health effects associated with consumption of processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids: a Burden of Proof study.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Iron-(Fe3+)-Dependent Reactivation of Telomerase Drives Colorectal Cancers.Cancer discovery · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Colorectal cancer prognosis based on dietary pattern using synthetic minority oversampling technique with K-nearest neighbors approach.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- Review
13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Although the association between red meat consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) is well established, the association across subsites of the colon and rectum remains uncertain, as does time of consumption in relation to cancer development. As these relationships are key for understanding the pathogenesis of CRC, they were examined in two large cohorts with repeated dietary measures over time, the Nurses' Health Study (n = 87,108 women, 1980-2010) and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (n = 47,389 men, 1986-2010). Cox proportional hazards regression models generated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. In combined cohorts, there were 2,731 CRC cases (1,151 proximal colon, 816 distal colon, and 589 rectum). In pooled analyses, processed red meat was positively associated with CRC risk (per 1 serving/day increase: HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.32; P for trend 0.03) and particularly with distal colon cancer (per 1 serving/day increase; HR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.09-1.69; P for trend 0.006). Recent consumption of processed meat (within the past 4 years) was not associated with distal cancer. Unprocessed red meat was inversely associated with risk of distal colon cancer and a weak non-significant positive association between unprocessed red meat and proximal cancer was observed (per 1 serving/day increase: distal HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.68-0.82; P for trend <0.001; proximal HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.40; P for trend 0.22). Thus, in these two large cohorts of US health professionals, processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of CRC, particularly distal cancer, with little evidence that higher intake of unprocessed red meat substantially increased risk of CRC. Future studies, particularly those with sufficient sample size to assess associations by subsites across the colon are needed to confirm these findings and elucidate potentially distinct mechanisms underlying the relationship between processed meat and subtypes of unprocessed red meat with CRC.
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.