SynthesisPloS one2024
The association between major gastrointestinal cancers and red and processed meat and fish consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cancer Risk and Mortality Following Substitution of Animal Foods with Plant Foods: A Systematic Review.Current nutrition reports · 2025Pooled it
- Association between red and processed meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis of prospective studies.GeroScience · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of meat-based, meat-based with α-tocopherol, and pesco-vegetarian diets on biomarkers associated with colorectal cancer risk: a randomized behavioral intervention trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Fish intake and mortality in Japan, a high fish-consuming country: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Fatty Acid Heterogeneity in Colorectal Cancer: From Food Matrices to Targeted Interventions.Cancers · 2026Review
- Development and content validity of Diet Quality Index for Athletes (DQI-Athletes).BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Food as Friend or Foe: A Decadal Narrative Review of Dietary Patterns as Determinants of Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology and Clinical Outcomes (2015-2025).International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Influence of Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet on Vascular Health and Healthy Aging in Women: Assessment Using CAVI.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Transforming beef quality through healthy breeding: a strategy to reduce carcinogenic compounds and enhance human health: a review.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Review
- Global, regional, and national burden of colorectal cancer associated with diet high in red meat, 1990 to 2021: an analysis for the global burden of disease study and prediction to 2036.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Validation of Two Portion Size Estimation Methods for Use with the Global Diet Quality Score App.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Adherence to Dietary Recommendations for Red and Processed Meat in Poland: Insights from the 2017-2020 National Nutrition Survey.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Risk factors, prevention and screening of colorectal cancer: A rising problem.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Association of red and processed meat consumption with cancer incidence and mortality: An umbrella review protocol.PloS one · 2025Article
- Burden of colorectal cancer attributable to dietary risks in China from 1990 to 2021: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Dietary guidance on plant-based meat alternatives for individuals wanting to increase plant protein intake.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Bread Consumption and Cancer Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Review
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
backgroundThe association between red meat, fish, and processed meat consumption and the risk of developing gastrointestinal (GI) cancers remains inconclusive despite several investigations. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to update the existing scientific evidence.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases until May 20, 2023. We analyzed observational studies that examined the associations between red and processed meat and fish consumption and GI cancers. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using the χ2 and τ2 tests, as well as I2 statistics. We explored the likelihood of publication bias using Begg's and Egger's tests and trim-and-fill analysis. We reported the overall effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model.
resultsOf the 21,004 studies identified, 95 studies involving 5,794,219 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The consumption of high levels of red meat, as compared to low levels, was found to significantly increase the risk of developing esophageal, pancreatic, liver, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. Similarly, the consumption of high levels of processed meat, as compared to low levels, significantly increased the risk of pancreatic, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. In contrast, the consumption of high levels of fish, as compared to low levels, significantly reduced the risk of colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides updated evidence on the association between red meat, processed meat, and fish consumption and the risk of developing five major types of GI cancers.
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.