Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33271590›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Intake of Various Food Groups and Risk of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Prospective Studies.

Asma Kazemi, Reza Barati-Boldaji, Sepideh Soltani, Nazanin Mohammadipoor, Zahra Esmaeilinezhad, Cian C T Clark, Siavash Babajafari, Marzieh Akbarzadeh

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 126 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. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Asma KazemiNutrition Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.ORCID 0000-0001-5032-0078
Reza Barati-BoldajiNutrition Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Sepideh SoltaniYazd Cardiovascular Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Nazanin MohammadipoorNurtition Research Center, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Zahra EsmaeilinezhadNutrition Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Cian C T ClarkCentre for Intelligent Healthcare, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
Siavash BabajafariNutrition Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Marzieh AkbarzadehNurtition Research Center, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IRIntelligent Health (United Kingdom) · GBShahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite increasing evidence for the association of food-based dietary patterns with breast cancer risk, knowledge about the shape of the relationship and the quality of meta-evidence are insufficient. We aimed to summarize the associations between food groups and risks of breast cancer. We performed a systematic literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases up to March 2020. We included cohort, case-cohort, nested case-control studies, and follow-up studies of randomized controlled trials that investigated the relationship between breast cancer risk and at least 1 of the following food groups: red meat, processed meat, fish, poultry, egg, vegetables, fruit, dairy product (overall, milk, yogurt, and cheese), grains/cereals, nuts, legumes, soy, and sugar-sweetened beverages. Summary risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effects model for linear and nonlinear relationships. Inverse linear associations were observed for vegetables (RR per 100 g/d, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), fruit (RR per 100 g/d, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99), cheese (RR per 30 g/d, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00), and soy (RR per 30 g/d, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99), while positive associations were observed for red (RR per 100 g/d, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.18) and processed meat (RR per 50 g/d, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.33). None of the other food groups were significantly associated with breast cancer risk. A nonlinear association was observed only for milk, such that the intake of >450 g/d increased the risk, while no association was observed for lower intake amounts. High intakes of vegetables, fruit, cheese, and soy products and low intakes of red and processed meat were associated with lower risks of breast cancer. However, causality cannot be inferred from these statistical correlations.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAnimalsDietFemaleHumansProspective StudiesRisk FactorsVegetablesbreast cancerER/PR-positivehormone receptor-positiverefined grainwhole grain

Identifiers

PMID33271590
PMCPMC8166564
OpenAlexW3106686532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.