Reduction of Red and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Mortality and Incidence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies
Han MA, Zeraatkar D, Guyatt GH, Vernooij RWM, El Dib R, Zhang Y, Algarni A, Leung G, Storman D, Valli C, Rabassa M, Rehman N, Parvizian MK, Zworth M, Bartoszko JJ, Lopes LC, Sit D, Bala MM, Alonso-Coello P, Johnston BC
Annals of internal medicine · 117 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
- 2019-10-01 · Ann Intern Med · vol. 171 · issue 10 · pp. 711–720
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Cited
- 167 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 22.1× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 67 works
- Access
- Open access (repository copy) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Research areas
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Cancer Risks and Factors
- Keywords
- Medicine, Incidence (geometry), Reduction (mathematics), Cancer incidence, Cancer, Red meat, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Pathology
- MeSH
- humans, neoplasms, diet, incidence, meat products, red meat
20 authors
From KR, CA, NL, BR, CN, SA, PL, ES, US
- Mi Ah HanChosun University
- Dena ZeraatkarMcMaster University
- Gordon Henry GuyattMcMaster University
- Robin W.M. VernooijDalhousie University; Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation
- Regina El DibDalhousie University; Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
- Ying ZhangBeijing University of Chinese Medicine
Abstract
This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.
Background
Cancer incidence has continuously increased over the past few centuries and represents a major health burden worldwide.
Purpose
To evaluate the possible causal relationship between intake of red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence.
Data sources
Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019 without language restrictions.
Study selection
Cohort studies that included more than 1000 adults and reported the association between consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence.
Data extraction
Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias; 1 reviewer evaluated the certainty of evidence, which was confirmed or revised by the senior reviewer.
Data synthesis
Of 118 articles (56 cohorts) with more than 6 million participants, 73 articles were eligible for the dose-response meta-analyses, 30 addressed cancer mortality, and 80 reported cancer incidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that an intake reduction of 3 servings of unprocessed meat per week was associated with a very small reduction in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime. Evidence of low to very low certainty suggested that each intake reduction of 3 servings of processed meat per week was associated with very small decreases in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime; prostate cancer mortality; and incidence of esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancer.
Limitation
Limited causal inferences due to residual confounding in observational studies, risk of bias due to limitations in diet assessment and adjustment for confounders, recall bias in dietary assessment, and insufficient data for planned subgroup analyses.
Conclusion
The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low.
Primary funding source
None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).
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.