SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2020
Processed meat intake and incidence of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations of oral health with colorectal cancer risk: accumulated evidences from observational studies.BMC cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Association between red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective studies.GeroScience · 2025Pooled it
- Association of meat consumption with the risk of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Association between ultra-processed foods and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Pooled it
- Global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Weight-centric prevention of cancer.Obesity pillars · 2024Review
- Iron - a background article for the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.Food & nutrition research · 2024Review
- Identifying metabolic features of colorectal cancer liability using Mendelian randomization.eLife · 2023Article
- Identifying metabolic features of colorectal cancer liability using Mendelian randomization.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Diet quality as assessed by Healthy Eating Index-2015 among Hungarian Roma living in settlements of Northeast Hungary.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Scientific advice related to nutrient profiling for the development of harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling and the setting of nutrient profiles for restricting nutrition and health claims on foods.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022Article
- Genesis and Mechanism of Some Cancer Types and an Overview on the Role of Diet and Nutrition in Cancer Prevention.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Periodontal disease as a risk factor for sporadic colorectal cancer: results from COLDENT study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2022Article
- NUQUEST-NUtrition QUality Evaluation Strengthening Tools: development of tools for the evaluation of risk of bias in nutrition studies.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2022Article
- Emerging roles of mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes in gastrointestinal cancers.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Adaptation of Clinical Practice Guideline for Colorectal Cancer Screening in People with Average Risk in Isfahan Province.International journal of preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Processed meat consumption and associated factors in Chile: A cross-sectional study nested in the MAUCO cohort.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Processed Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of the Constraints of Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies.Nutrients · 2021Review
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective was to use accumulated evidence to explore the association between processed meat intake and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and to investigate the reliability of associations by evaluating patterns of risk by study population characteristics and research quality parameters. We included 29 observational prospective cohort studies with relative risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals for CRC according to various levels of processed meat consumption. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Data sources were PubMed and Embase up to January 2017. The summary relative risks for high versus low processed meat consumption and risk of CRC, colon, and rectal cancer were 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.26), 1.19 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.31), and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.49), respectively. Similar estimates were observed for the dose-response analyses. Heterogeneity across studies was detected in most analytical models. The overall judgment showed that two out of 29 studies had a moderate risk of bias, 25 had a serious risk of bias, and 2 had a critical risk of bias. The bias domains most often rated critical were bias due to risk of confounding, bias due to missing data, and selective outcome reporting bias. Although this meta-analysis indicates a modest association between processed meat intake and an increased risk of CRC, our assessment of internal validity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results, as most of the included studies were judged to have serious or critical risks of bias.
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.