Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28070638›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of nutrition2018

Red and processed meat consumption and risk of bladder cancer: a dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies.

Alessio Crippa, Susanna C Larsson, Andrea Discacciati, Alicja Wolk, Nicola Orsini

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of nutrition, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Bladder cancer risk factors: a comprehensive umbrella review of meta-analyses.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Epidemiology of Bladder Cancer in the Arab World: 2019 Global Burden of Disease Data.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. CD36: The Bridge between Lipids and Tumors.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alessio CrippaPublic Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavagen 18A, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden. alessio.crippa@ki.se.
Susanna C LarssonUnit of Nutritional Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels Vag 13, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Andrea DiscacciatiUnit of Biostatistics, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels Vag 13, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Alicja WolkUnit of Nutritional Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels Vag 13, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nicola OrsiniPublic Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavagen 18A, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

Karolinska Institutet Strategic Program in Epidemiology and the Swedish Medical SocietyKarolinska Institutet (SE) Young Scholar Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesSeveral epidemiological studies have analyzed the associations between red and processed meat and bladder cancer risk but the shape and strength of the associations are still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis to quantify the potential association between red and processed meat and bladder cancer risk.

methodsRelevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed database through January 2016 and reviewing the reference lists of the retrieved articles. Results were combined using random-effects models.

resultsFive cohort studies with 3262 cases and 1,038,787 participants and 8 cases-control studies with 7009 cases and 27,240 participants met the inclusion criteria. Red meat was linearly associated with bladder cancer risk in case-control studies, with a pooled RR of 1.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13, 2.02) for every 100 g increase per day, while no association was observed among cohort studies (P heterogeneity across study design = 0.02). Based on both case-control and cohort studies, the pooled relative risk (RR) for every 50 g increase of processed meat per day was 1.20 (95% CI 1.06, 1.37) (P heterogeneity across study design = 0.22).

conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that processed meat may be positively associated with bladder cancer risk. A positive association between red meat and risk of bladder cancer was observed only in case-control studies, while no association was observe in prospective studies.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineAnimalsCattleDietFood, PreservedHumansIncidenceMeatMeat ProductsReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSheep, DomesticSus scrofaUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBladder cancerDose–responseMeta-analysisProcessed meatRed meat

Identifiers

PMID28070638
PMCPMC5845591
OpenAlexW2567362633

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.