Red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Xu X, Yu E, Gao X, Song N, Liu L, Wei X, Zhang W, Fu C
International journal of cancer · 56 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2012-05-03 · Int J Cancer · vol. 132 · issue 2 · pp. 437–448
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Cited
- 72 citations · more than 94% of similar papers · 3.5× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 51 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection · Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- Red meat, Medicine, Meta-analysis, Relative risk, Confounding, Confidence interval, Colorectal adenoma, Observational study, Internal medicine, Cohort study, Colorectal cancer, Animal science, Cancer, Biology, Pathology
- MeSH
- animals, cattle, deer, sheep, swine, adenoma, colorectal neoplasms, risk, regression analysis, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, meat products
8 authors
From CN, DE
- Xiaodong XuSecond Military Medical University; Changhai Hospital
- Enda YuSecond Military Medical University; X-Fab (Germany); Changhai Hospital
- Xianhua GaoSecond Military Medical University; X-Fab (Germany); Changhai Hospital
- Ning SongSecond Military Medical University; Changhai Hospital
- Lianjie LiuSecond Military Medical University; Changhai Hospital
- Xubiao WeiSecond Military Medical University; Changhai Hospital
Abstract
Inconsistent results regarding the association between red and processed meat intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma (CRA), the precursor of colorectal cancer (CRC), have been reported. To provide a quantitative assessment of this association, we summarized the evidence from observational studies. Relevant studies were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE until December 31, 2011. Summary relative risks (SRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran's Q and I(2) statistics. A total of 21 studies (16 case-control studies and five cohort/nested case-control studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The SRRs of CRA were 1.36 (95% CI = 1.17-1.58) for every 100 g/day increase in red meat intake, and 1.24 (95% CI = 1.12-1.36) for the highest versus the lowest level of red meat intake. Nonlinear dose-response meta-analysis indicated that CRA risk increased approximately linearly with increasing intake of red meat up to ~ 90 g/day, where the curve reached its plateau. Subgrouped analyses revealed that the increased risk of CRA with intake of red meat was independent of geographic locations, design and confounders. The SRRs of CRA was 1.28 (95% CI = 1.03-1.60) for per 50 g/day increase in processed meat intake, and 1.17 (95% CI = 1.08-1.26) for the highest versus the lowest level of processed meat intake. Increased intake of red and processed meat is associated with significantly increased risk of CRA.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.