SynthesisScientific reports2016
Dietary fruit, vegetable, fat, and red and processed meat intakes and Barrett's esophagus risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comprehensive evaluation of epidemiological evidence on processed meat intake in relation to cancer, cardiovascular, metabolic diseases and all-cause mortality: an umbrella review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Lifestyle interventions can reduce the risk of Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 62 studies involving 250,157 participants.Cancer medicine · 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
- Red and processed meat consumption and gastric cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Oncotarget · 2017Pooled it
- Unraveling the pathogenesis of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: the "omics" era.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Dietary Habits and Risk of Esophagitis and Barrett's Esophagus: A Multicenter Italian Case-Control Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Dietary total antioxidant capacity and incidence of chronic kidney disease in subjects with dysglycemia: Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study.European journal of nutrition · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The relationships between dietary fruit, vegetable, fat, and red and processed meat intakes and Barrett's esophagus (BE) risk remain inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence on these issues. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from inception through October 2015. A total of eight studies were included in this analysis. Fruit intake was not associated with BE risk (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.37-1.13), but vegetable intake was strongly associated with BE risk (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.29-0.71). Saturated fat, red meat and processed meat intakes were not associated with BE risk with OR = 1.25 (95% CI = 0.82-1.91), OR = 0.85 (95% CI = 0.61-1.17) and OR = 1.03 (95% CI = 0.73-1.46), respectively. Dietary vegetable not fruits intake may be associated with decreased BE risk. Fat and red and processed meat intakes may not contribute to an increased BE risk. Well-designed, large prospective studies with better established dose-response relationships are needed to further validate these issues.
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.