Guidelines to restrict consumption of red meat to under 350 g/wk based on colorectal cancer risk are not consistent with health evidence
Pouzou JG, Zagmutt FJ
Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) · 2 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 (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 no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2024-02-15 · Nutrition · vol. 122 · pág. 112395
- Editorial
- Elsevier BV
- Citado
- 4 citas · más que el 81% de estudios similares · 1.5× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 44 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista híbrida) · CC-BY-NC-ND
- Áreas de investigación
- Nutritional Studies and Diet · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Palabras clave
- Colorectal cancer, Medicine, Relative risk, Red meat, Consumption (sociology), Cancer, Demography, Environmental health, Internal medicine, Confidence interval, Pathology
- MeSH
- humans, colorectal neoplasms, diet, risk, risk factors, nutritional status, meat, red meat
2 autores
- Jane G. Pouzou🇺🇸EP Analytics (United States)
- Francisco J. Zagmutt🇺🇸 · autor de correspondenciaEP Analytics (United States); Epix Pharmaceuticals (United States)
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
The Nordic Nutrition Recommendations of 2023 (NNR2023) incorporate sustainability, health, and nutrition in their food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs). NNR2023 recommends a consumption of ≤350 g/wk of unprocessed red meat (RM) based on association with colorectal cancer (CRC). This recommendation is lower than other FBDGs such as the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) recommendation it is based on (350-500 g/wk).
Objective
To evaluate the empirical evidence and models cited by the NNR2023 to support the RM guidance.
Methods
We fitted least-assumption (LA) dose-response (DR) models to the studies included in two systematic reviews (SRs) selected by NNR2023 on the RM and CRC association. We compared them against six parametric models reported in the two SRs. We evaluated the statistical significance of modeled relative risks (RR) at different consumption levels.
Results
Twenty-one studies (20,604,188 patient-years) were analyzed. We found no significant association (RR = 1.04, 0.99-1.09) between 350g/wk of RM and CRC using the LA models, in agreement with the least restrictive models reported by Lescinsky et al., 2022 (RR = 1.11[0.89-1.38]) and WCRF (RR= 1.01[0.96-1.07]). The association was significant at 350 g/wk only under restricting assumptions such as monotonicity RR=1.3[1.01-1.64], and linearity RR = 1.06 [1.00-1.12]. No significant empirical association is observed under 567 g/wk based on evidence used by NNR2023.
Conclusions
The sources cited by NNR2023 do not support a consumption restriction of ≤350 g/wk of RM due to CRC, and other studies omitted by NNR2023 do not support association between RM and CRC. We show that model assumptions rather than empirical evidence drive this recommendation. Model uncertainty should be explicitly incorporated in FBDGs.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY-NC-ND).
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.