Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34684602›Full record

ReviewNutrients2021

Processed Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of the Constraints of Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies.

Mina Nicole Händel, Jeanett Friis Rohde, Ramune Jacobsen, Berit Lilienthal Heitmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

4 authors.

Mina Nicole HändelResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-8256-8756
Jeanett Friis RohdeResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9300-9009
Ramune JacobsenResearch Group for Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8142-9807
Berit Lilienthal HeitmannResearch Unit for Dietary Studies, The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6809-4504

Funding

Oak Foundation OCAY-13-309
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on a large volume of observational scientific studies and many summary papers, a high consumption of meat and processed meat products has been suggested to have a harmful effect on human health. These results have led guideline panels worldwide to recommend to the general population a reduced consumption of processed meat and meat products, with the overarching aim of lowering disease risk, especially of cancer. We revisited and updated the evidence base, evaluating the methodological quality and the certainty of estimates in the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the association between processed meat consumption and the risk of cancer at different sites across the body, as well as the overall risk of cancer mortality. We further explored if discrepancies in study designs and risks of bias could explain the heterogeneity observed in meta-analyses. In summary, there are severe methodological limitations to the majority of the previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the consumption of processed meat and the risk of cancer. Many lacked the proper assessment of the methodological quality of the primary studies they included, or the literature searches did not fulfill the methodological standards needed in order to be systematic and transparent. The primary studies included in the reviews had a potential risk for the misclassification of exposure, a serious risk of bias due to confounding, a moderate to serious risk of bias due to missing data, and/or a moderate to serious risk of selection of the reported results. All these factors may have potentially led to the overestimation of the risk related to processed meat intake across all cancer outcomes. Thus, with the aim of lowering the risk of cancer, the recommendation to reduce the consumption of processed meat and meat products in the general population seems to be based on evidence that is not methodologically strong.

Indexed as

HumansMeat ProductsNeoplasmsPublicationsRisk FactorsAMSTARcancerdietary guidelinesGRADEmeta-analysisprocessed meatROBINS-Isystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34684602
PMCPMC8537381

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.