Red and processed meat consumption and risk of glioma in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Saneei P, Willett W, Esmaillzadeh A
Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 23 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (clasificado por nuestro filtro de IA)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Universidad u hospital
- Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
- Universidad u hospital
- Food Security Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
Según 2 financiadores declarados y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2015-01-01 · J Res Med Sci · vol. 20 · número 6 · pág. 602
- Editorial
- Medknow
- Citado
- 34 citas · más que el 53% de estudios similares · 0.5× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 62 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY-NC-SA
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Diet and metabolism studies · Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
- Palabras clave
- Medicine, Meta-analysis, Observational study, Relative risk, Confidence interval, Red meat, Cohort study, Glioma, Population, Processed meat, Cohort, Internal medicine, Environmental health, Pathology, Food science, Biology
3 autores
- Ahmad Esmaillzadeh🇮🇷Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
- Parvane Saneei🇮🇷Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
- Walter Willett🇺🇸Boston University; Harvard University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
These findings from several observational studies, investigated the association between red meat consumption and gliomas, were inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to summarize available date on the relation between meat intake and risk of glioma.
Materials and methods
A systematic literature search of relevant reports published until May 2014 of the PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, Excerpta Medica database, Ovid database, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases was conducted. From 723 articles yielded in the preliminary literature search, data from eighteen publications (14 case-control, three cohort, and one nested case-control study) on unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and/or total red meat consumption in relation to glioma in adults were included in the analysis. Quality assessment of studies was performed. Random effects model was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
Results
We found a positive significant association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of glioma (relative risk [RR] = 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.58) after excluding three studies with uncertain type of brain cancer. This analysis included only one cohort study which revealed no relation between unprocessed red meat intake and glioma (RR = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.35-8.77). Consumption of processed meats was not related to increased risk of glioma in population-based case-control studies (RR = 1.26; 95% CI: 1.05-1.51) and reduced risk in hospital-based case-controls (RR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65-0.97). No significant association was seen between processed red meat intake and risk of glioma in cohort studies (RR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.84-1.37). Total red meat consumption was not associated with risk of adult glioma in case-control or cohort studies.
Conclusion
In this meta-analysis of 18 observational studies, we found a modest positive association between unprocessed red meat intake and risk of gliomas based almost entirely on case-control studies. Processed red meat was overall not associated with risk of gliomas in case-control or cohort studies.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-SA).
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.