Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30993317›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2020

Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: a prospective study.

Kathryn E Bradbury, Neil Murphy, Timothy J Key

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
25.1field-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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 281 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

83 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kathryn E BradburyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Neil MurphyInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France.
Timothy J KeyCancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Centre international de recherche sur le cancer · FRUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 570/A16491Cancer Research UK C8221/A19170Medical Research Council MR/M012190/1Wellcome Trust 205212/Z/16/ZWorld Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost of the previous studies on diet and colorectal cancer were based on diets consumed during the 1990s.

methodsWe used Cox-regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for colorectal cancer by dietary factors in the UK Biobank study. Men and women aged 40-69 years at recruitment (2006-10) reported their diet on a short food-frequency questionnaire (n = 475 581). Dietary intakes were re-measured in a large sub-sample (n = 175 402) who completed an online 24-hour dietary assessment during follow-up. Trends in risk across the baseline categories were calculated by assigning re-measured intakes to allow for measurement error and changes in intake over time.

resultsDuring an average of 5.7 years of follow-up, 2609 cases of colorectal cancer occurred. Participants who reported consuming an average of 76 g/day of red and processed meat compared with 21 g/day had a 20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4-37] higher risk of colorectal cancer. Participants in the highest fifth of intake of fibre from bread and breakfast cereals had a 14% (95% CI: 2-24) lower risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was associated with an 8% (95% CI: 4-12) higher risk per 10 g/day higher intake. Fish, poultry, cheese, fruit, vegetables, tea and coffee were not associated with colorectal-cancer risk.

conclusionsConsumption of red and processed meat at an average level of 76 g/d that meets the current UK government recommendation (≤90 g/day) was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was also associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, whereas fibre from bread and breakfast cereals was associated with a reduced risk.

Indexed as

Feeding BehaviorAdultAgedAnimalsBiological Specimen BanksColorectal NeoplasmsDietDietary FiberFemaleFruitHumansMaleMeatMiddle AgedPoultryProportional Hazards ModelsDietary Fibercolorectal cancerDietprocessed meatprospective studyred meatUK Biobank

Identifiers

PMID30993317
PMCPMC7124508
OpenAlexW2937822381

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.