ArticleBMC nutrition2024
Dietary risk factors for colorectal cancer in Uganda: a case-control study.
Article in BMC nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Analysis of the Differential Effects of Red Meat on Colorectal Cancer Risks: A Meta-Analytic Approach.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Colorectal Cancer Risk and Protective Factors Among People of African Descent: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLow-income countries in East Africa have a lower incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) than high-income countries; however, the incidence has steadily increased in the last few decades. In Uganda, the extent to which genetic and environmental factors, particularly dietary factors, contribute to the aetiology of CRC is unclear. Therefore, the objective of our study was to determine the relationship between dietary factors and CRC in Uganda.
methodsWe conducted a case-control study and recruited 128 cases and 256 controls, matched for age (± 5 years) and sex. Data regarding the frequency of consumption of the dietary factors were obtained from all the participants using an interview-based questionnaire. The potential dietary risk factors and protective factors evaluated included the type and frequency of meat consumed and the type and frequency of high-fibre foods consumed. The frequency was either 4 or more times/week, 2-3 times/week, once/week or never. Conditional logistic regression analyses were used to determine the odds ratios associated with the different risk and protective factors.
resultsThe median age (IQR) for the case participants was 55.5 (43-67.5) years, and that of the control participants was 54 (42-65) years. The male-to-female ratio was 1:1 for all the participants. Factors significantly associated with CRC cases included:- the consumption of boiled beef 2-3 times/week (aOR:3.24; 95% CI: 1.08-9.69; p < 0.035). Consumption of high-fibre foods, including:- millet for ≥ 4 times/week (aOR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.09-0.62; p = 0.003)), spinach for ≥ 4 times/week (aOR:0.32; 95% CI: 0.11-0.97; p = 0.043), and potatoes 2-3 times/week (aOR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.09-0.97; p = 0.044), were protective against CRC. Boiled cassava showed a tendency to reduce the likelihood of CRC when consumed ≥ 4 times/week (aOR:0.38; 95% CI: 0.12-1.18) however this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.093).
conclusionsThe consumption of boiled beef increases the risk of CRC, while the intake of high-fibre foods may reduce the risk of CRC among Ugandans. We recommend nutritional educational programmes to increase public awareness regarding the protective role of a high-fibre diet and to limit the intake of cooked meat in our Ugandan population.
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.