Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30183083›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of cancer2018

Consumption of red and processed meat and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Maryam S Farvid, Mariana C Stern, Teresa Norat, Shizuka Sasazuki, Paolo Vineis, Matty P Weijenberg, Alicja Wolk, Kana Wu, Bernard W Stewart, Eunyoung Cho

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Lifestyle and Reproductive Factors Associated with Risk of Breast Cancer in Asian Women.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

10 authors.

Maryam S FarvidDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Mariana C SternDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Keck School of Medicine of USC, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Teresa NoratDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Shizuka SasazukiDivision of Prevention, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Paolo VineisHuGeF Foundation, Torino, Italy.
Matty P WeijenbergDepartment of Epidemiology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Alicja WolkInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kana WuDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Bernard W StewartSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Eunyoung ChoDepartment of Dermatology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI.

Funding

USC/NORRIS COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER (CORE) SUPPORTP30CA014089 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI Fumito Ito · 1985 to 2026
$181.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior studies on red and processed meat consumption with breast cancer risk have generated inconsistent results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies to summarize the evidence regarding the relation of red meat and processed meat consumption with breast cancer incidence. We searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through January 2018 for prospective studies that reported the association between red meat and processed meat consumption with incident breast cancer. The multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) was combined comparing the highest with the lowest category of red meat (unprocessed) and processed meat consumption using a random-effect meta-analysis. We identified 13 cohort, 3 nested case-control and two clinical trial studies. Comparing the highest to the lowest category, red meat (unprocessed) consumption was associated with a 6% higher breast cancer risk (pooled RR,1.06; 95% confidence intervals (95%CI):0.99-1.14; I

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesDatabases, FactualEpidemiologic StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceMeat ProductsMiddle AgedObservational Studies as TopicProspective StudiesRed MeatRisk FactorsYoung Adultbreast cancermeta-analysisN-acetyltransferase 2 acetylatorsprocessed meatred meat

Identifiers

PMID30183083
PMCPMC8985652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.