Lanzamiento Enero 2027

Metaanálisis2010Financiado por la industria

Financiado en parte por National Cattlemen's Beef Association

A review and meta-analysis of red and processed meat consumption and breast cancer

Alexander DD, Morimoto LM, Mink PJ, Cushing CA

Nutrition research reviews · 68 citas

Etiquetas de revisión

Financiado por la industria

Datos 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
2010-11-26 · Nutr Res Rev · vol. 23 · número 2 · págs. 349–365
Editorial
Cambridge University Press
Citado
101 citas · más que el 70% de estudios similares · 1.0× el promedio de su campo
Referencias
41 trabajos
Acceso
Lectura gratuita
Áreas de investigación
Nutritional Studies and Diet · Cancer Risks and Factors · Meat and Animal Product Quality
Palabras clave
red meat consumption, processed meat consumption, breast cancer risk, dietary risk factors, postmenopausal women, premenopausal women, cancer risk estimates, meat consumption
MeSH
humans, breast neoplasms, diet, risk factors, menopause, food handling, meat, female

4 autores

  • Dominik D. Alexander · autor de correspondencia
  • Libby M. Morimoto🇺🇸Exponent (United States)
  • Pamela J. Mink🇺🇸Emory University
  • Colleen A. Cushing

Resumen

El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.

The relationship between meat consumption and breast cancer has been the focus of several epidemiological investigations, yet there has been no clear scientific consensus as to whether red or processed meat intake increases the risk of breast cancer. We conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis incorporating data from several recently published prospective studies of red or processed meat intake and breast cancer. In the meta-analysis utilising data from the Pooling Project publication (includes data from eight cohorts) combined with data from nine studies published between 2004 and 2009 and one study published in 1996, the fixed-effect summary relative risk estimate (SRRE) for red meat intake (high v. low) and breast cancer was 1·02 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·07; P value for heterogeneity = 0·001) and the random-effects SRRE was 1·07 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·17). The SRRE for each 100 g increment of red meat was 1·04 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·07), based on a fixed-effects model, and 1·12 (95 % CI 1·03, 1·23) based on a random-effects model. No association was observed for each 100 g increment of red meat among premenopausal women (SRRE 1·01; 95 % CI 0·92, 1·11) but a statistically significant SRRE of 1·22 (95 % CI 1·04, 1·44) was observed among postmenopausal women using a random-effects model. However, the association for postmenopausal women was attenuated and non-significant when using a fixed-effects model (SRRE 1·03; 95 % CI 0·98, 1·08). The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for high (v. low) processed meat intake and breast cancer were 1·00 (95 % CI 0·98, 1·01; P value for heterogeneity = 0·005) and 1·08 (95 % CI 1·01, 1·16), respectively. The fixed- and random-effect SRRE for each 30 g increment of processed meat were 1·03 (95 % CI 1·00, 1·06) and 1·06 (95 % CI 0·99, 1·14), respectively. Overall, weak positive summary associations were observed across all meta-analysis models, with the majority being non-statistically significant. Heterogeneity was evident in most analyses, summary associations were sensitive to the choice of analytical model (fixed v. random effects), and publication bias appeared to have produced slightly elevated summary associations. On the basis of this quantitative assessment, red meat and processed meat intake does not appear to be independently associated with increasing the risk of breast cancer, although further investigations of potential effect modifiers, such as analyses by hormone receptor status, may provide valuable insight to potential patterns of associations.

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?

0 · nada10 · totalmente

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.