Processed meat and colorectal cancer: a quantitative review of prospective epidemiologic studies
Alexander DD, Miller AJ, Cushing CA, Lowe KA
European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 48 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos 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
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2010-05-21 · Eur J Cancer Prev · vol. 19 · número 5 · págs. 328–341
- Editorial
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Citado
- 80 citas · más que el 97% de estudios similares · 7.5× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 67 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Meat and Animal Product Quality · Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
- Palabras clave
- processed meat, colorectal cancer, dietary risk factors, cancer risk, dose-response relationship, sex differences, cancer prevention
- MeSH
- humans, colorectal neoplasms, diet, risk assessment, prospective studies, meat products, female, male
4 autores
- Dominik D. Alexander🇺🇸 · autor de correspondenciaExponent (United States)
- Arthur J. Miller
- Colleen A. Cushing🇺🇸Exponent (United States)
- Kimberly Anne Lowe
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
A tremendous amount of scientific interest has been generated regarding processed meat consumption and cancer risk. Therefore, to estimate the association between processed meat intake and colorectal cancer (CRC), a meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted. Twenty-eight prospective studies of processed meat and CRC were identified, of which 20 represented independent nonoverlapping study populations. Summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high versus low intake and dose-response relationships were calculated. The SRRE for high (vs. low) processed meat intake and CRC was 1.16 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.10-1.23] for all studies. Summary associations were modified considerably by sex; the SRRE for men was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.07-1.42) and the SRRE for women was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.94-1.16), based on nine and 13 studies, respectively. Sensitivity analyses did not indicate appreciable statistical variation by tumor site, processed meat groups, or study location. The SRRE for each 30-gram increment of processed meat and CRC was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.05-1.15) based on nine studies, and the SRRE for each incremental serving of processed meat per week was 1.03 (95% CI: 1.01-1.05) based on six studies. Overall, summary associations were weak in magnitude (i.e. most less than 1.20), processed meat definitions and analytical comparisons were highly variable across studies, and isolating the independent effects of processed meat intake is difficult, given the likely influence of confounding by other dietary and lifestyle factors. Therefore, the currently available epidemiologic evidence is not sufficient to support a clear and unequivocal independent positive association between processed meat consumption and CRC.
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.