Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption and Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Risk: A Dose-response Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
Li F, Duan F, Zhao X, Song C, Cui S, Dai L
Nutrition and cancer · 18 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
- 2016-07-01 · Nutr Cancer · vol. 68 · issue 6 · pp. 1034–1043
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Cited
- 23 citations · more than 32% of similar papers · 0.4× the field average
- References
- 39 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Head and Neck Cancer Studies · Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- Red meat, Confidence interval, Medicine, Nasopharyngeal carcinoma, Relative risk, Processed meat, Meta-analysis, Animal science, Food science, Internal medicine, Biology, Pathology
- MeSH
- animals, cattle, goats, sheep, domestic, sus scrofa, humans, nasopharyngeal neoplasms, risk, evidence-based medicine, meat, meat products, male, food, preserved, observational studies as topic
6 authors
From CN, US
- Fuqin Li · correspondingFirst Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University
- Fujiao Duan · correspondingZhengzhou University; Henan Cancer Hospital
- Xia ZhaoFirst Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University
- Chunhua SongZhengzhou University; Henan Cancer Hospital
- Shuli CuiNortheastern University
- Liping DaiZhengzhou University; Henan Cancer Hospital
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to clarify and quantify the potential dose-response association between the intake of total red and total processed meat and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Chinese databases (CNKI and Wanfang). The summary relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was calculated. A total of 15 independent studies with 12,735 subjects were identified. Compared with the low-rank intake, the summary RR of NPC was 1.35 (95%CI, 1.21-1.51) for total red meat and 1.46 (95%CI, 1.34-1.64) for total processed meat. For the moderate-rank intake, the summary RR of NPC was 1.54 (95%CI, 1.36-1.79) for total red meat and 1.59 (95%CI, 1.3-1.90) for total processed meat. The summary RR for high-rank intake was 1.71 (95%CI, 1.14-2.55) for total red meat and 2.11 (95%CI, 1.31-3.42) for total processed meat. The combined estimates showed obvious evidence of statistically significant association between total red and total processed meat consumption dose and risk of NPC (Ptrend< 0.01). In conclusion, our data suggest that a high intake of total red or total processed meat is associated with a significantly increased risk of NPC.
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.