Red and processed meat consumption and risk of glioma in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Saneei P, Willett W, Esmaillzadeh A
Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 23 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
- Intake measured by
- Not stated
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- University or hospital
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
- University or hospital
- Food Security Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Based on 2 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2015-01-01 · J Res Med Sci · vol. 20 · issue 6 · p. 602
- Publisher
- Medknow
- Cited
- 34 citations · more than 53% of similar papers · 0.5× the field average
- References
- 62 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY-NC-SA
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Diet and metabolism studies · Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
- Keywords
- Medicine, Meta-analysis, Observational study, Relative risk, Confidence interval, Red meat, Cohort study, Glioma, Population, Processed meat, Cohort, Internal medicine, Environmental health, Pathology, Food science, Biology
3 authors
From IR, US
- Ahmad EsmaillzadehIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
- Parvane SaneeiIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
- Walter WillettBoston University; Harvard University
Abstract
Background
These findings from several observational studies, investigated the association between red meat consumption and gliomas, were inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to summarize available date on the relation between meat intake and risk of glioma.
Materials and methods
A systematic literature search of relevant reports published until May 2014 of the PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, Excerpta Medica database, Ovid database, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases was conducted. From 723 articles yielded in the preliminary literature search, data from eighteen publications (14 case-control, three cohort, and one nested case-control study) on unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and/or total red meat consumption in relation to glioma in adults were included in the analysis. Quality assessment of studies was performed. Random effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
Results
We found a positive significant association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of glioma (relative risk [RR] = 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.58) after excluding three studies with uncertain type of brain cancer. This analysis included only one cohort study which revealed no relation between unprocessed red meat intake and glioma (RR = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.35-8.77). Consumption of processed meats was not related to increased risk of glioma in population-based case-control studies (RR = 1.26; 95% CI: 1.05-1.51) and reduced risk in hospital-based case-controls (RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65-0.97). No significant association was seen between processed red meat intake and risk of glioma in cohort studies (RR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.84-1.37). Total red meat consumption was not associated with risk of adult glioma in case-control or cohort studies.
Conclusion
In this meta-analysis of 18 observational studies, we found a modest positive association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of gliomas based almost entirely on case-control studies. Processed red meat was overall not associated with risk of gliomas in case-control or cohort studies.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY-NC-SA).
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.