Processed meat intake and incidence of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies
Händel MN, Rohde JF, Jacobsen R, Nielsen SM, Christensen R, Alexander DD, Frederiksen P, Heitmann BL
European journal of clinical nutrition · 35 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
- 2020-02-06 · Eur J Clin Nutr · vol. 74 · número 8 · págs. 1132–1148
- Editorial
- Springer Nature
- Citado
- 50 citas · más que el 87% de estudios similares · 2.0× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 62 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Palabras clave
- processed meat, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, dietary intake, cancer risk, dose-response relationship, risk of bias, confounding, selective reporting, missing data
- MeSH
- humans, colorectal neoplasms, incidence, risk factors, prospective studies, reproducibility of results, meat, observational studies as topic
8 autores
- Mina Nicole Händel🇩🇰 · autor de correspondenciaFrederiksberg Hospital; Bispebjerg Hospital
- Jeanett Friis Rohde🇩🇰Frederiksberg Hospital; Bispebjerg Hospital
- Ramunë Jacobsen🇩🇰University of Copenhagen; Frederiksberg Hospital; Bispebjerg Hospital
- Sabrina Mai Nielsen🇩🇰University of Southern Denmark; Frederiksberg Hospital; Odense University Hospital; Bispebjerg Hospital
- Robin Christensen🇩🇰University of Southern Denmark; Frederiksberg Hospital; Odense University Hospital; Bispebjerg Hospital
- Dominik D. Alexander
- Peder Frederiksen🇩🇰Frederiksberg Hospital; Bispebjerg Hospital
- Berit L. Heitmann🇩🇰🇦🇺University of Copenhagen; The University of Sydney; University of Southern Denmark; Frederiksberg Hospital; Bispebjerg Hospital
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
The objective was to use accumulated evidence to explore the association between processed meat intake and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and to investigate the reliability of associations by evaluating patterns of risk by study population characteristics and research quality parameters. We included 29 observational prospective cohort studies with relative risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals for CRC according to various levels of processed meat consumption. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Data sources were PubMed and Embase up to January 2017. The summary relative risks for high versus low processed meat consumption and risk of CRC, colon, and rectal cancer were 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.26), 1.19 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.31), and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.49), respectively. Similar estimates were observed for the dose-response analyses. Heterogeneity across studies was detected in most analytical models. The overall judgment showed that two out of 29 studies had a moderate risk of bias, 25 had a serious risk of bias, and 2 had a critical risk of bias. The bias domains most often rated critical were bias due to risk of confounding, bias due to missing data, and selective outcome reporting bias. Although this meta-analysis indicates a modest association between processed meat intake and an increased risk of CRC, our assessment of internal validity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results, as most of the included studies were judged to have serious or critical risks of bias.
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.