Financiado en parte por National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Quantitative assessment of red meat or processed meat consumption and kidney cancer
Alexander DD, Cushing CA
Cancer detection and prevention · 29 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiado por la industriaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiado por la industria
- Grupo de la industria
- National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Según 1 financiador declarado.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2009-01-01 · Cancer Detect Prev · vol. 32 · número 5-6 · págs. 340–351
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 46 citas · más que el 94% de estudios similares · 4.3× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 52 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Cancer Risks and Factors · Renal cell carcinoma treatment
- Palabras clave
- red meat consumption, processed meat consumption, kidney cancer, dietary risk factors, meat consumption, smoking confounding, body mass index, energy intake
- MeSH
- animals, cattle, swine, humans, kidney neoplasms, risk assessment, risk factors, case-control studies, cohort studies, meat, meat products
2 autores
- Dominik D. Alexander · autor de correspondencia
- Colleen A. Cushing
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Objective
To conduct a quantitative assessment of red meat or processed meat consumption and kidney cancer.
Methods
We extracted data from 12 case-control studies, three cohort studies, and the Pooling Project of Diet and Cancer publication for which 13 international cohorts were evaluated. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to calculate summary relative risk estimates (SRRE) based on high vs. low intake values. Sensitivity and influence analyses were conducted, including assessments of heterogeneity.
Results
The SRRE for all studies that reported results for red meat (included variables labeled 'red meat' or single red meat items, such as beef, pork, or liver) was 1.12 (95% CI: 0.98-1.29; p-value for heterogeneity=0.015), and the SRRE using only data from prospective cohorts was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.15) with minimal heterogeneity (p=0.741). Similarly, in a meta-analysis of the five studies that simultaneously adjusted for smoking, BMI, and total energy intake, the SRRE for red meat was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.15). No significant association was observed in the meta-analysis of processed meat consumption (SRRE=1.07; 95% CI: 0.94-1.23), although a significant association was observed when only data from cohort studies were analyzed (SRRE=1.19; 95% CI: 1.03-1.37).
Conclusions
Although many of the summary results were positive, all were weak in magnitude, most were not statistically significant, and associations were attenuated among studies that adjusted for key potential confounding factors. In summary, the findings of this meta-analysis are not supportive of an independent relation between red or processed meat intake and kidney cancer.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.