SynthesisClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2020
Red and processed meat consumption and esophageal cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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, 2 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
- 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
- Association between dietary patterns and obesity-related metabolic phenotypes in Chinese middle-aged and older adults: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Current status and perspectives of esophageal cancer: a comprehensive review.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- Article
- Cancer Risk in Barrett's Esophagus: A Clinical Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Review
- Modelling the Effects of Roselle Extract, Potato Peel Flour, and Beef Fat on the Sensory Properties and Heterocyclic Amines Formation of Beef Patties Studied by Using Response Surface Methodology.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe associations between red and processed meat consumption and esophageal cancer risk remain inconclusive. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze these associations.
methodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies published between the databases' dates of inception and May 2019.
resultsWe ultimately selected 33 eligible studies for analysis. We found that the summary relative risks for the associations between meat consumption and esophageal cancer risk were positive for the case-control studies (P < 0.05), but negative for the cohort studies included in the analysis (P > 0.05). Subtype analysis indicated that red and processed meat consumption was not associated with the risks of esophageal adenocarcinoma (P > 0.05) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (P > 0.05) in the cohort studies.
conclusionsWe found case-control but not cohort studies to associate consumption of red and processed meat with the risk of esophageal cancer. Further large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
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.