The association between major gastrointestinal cancers and red and processed meat and fish consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the observational studies
Poorolajal J, Mohammadi Y, Fattahi-Darghlou M, Almasi-Moghadam F
PloS one · 19 citas
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 independiente
- Universidad u hospital
- Hamadan University of Medical Sciences
- Universidad u hospital
- Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences
- Subvenciones
- Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (140010218750)
Según 2 financiadores declarados y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2024-06-26 · PLoS One · vol. 19 · número 6 · pág. e0305994
- Editorial
- Public Library of Science
- Citado
- 26 citas · más que el 90% de estudios similares · 2.3× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 36 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · PUBLIC-DOMAIN
- Áreas de investigación
- Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection · Nutritional Studies and Diet · Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
- Palabras clave
- Meta-analysis, Red meat, Odds ratio, Medicine, Publication bias, Observational study, Colorectal cancer, Confidence interval, Internal medicine, Processed meat, Food science, Biology, Pathology, Cancer
- MeSH
- animals, fishes, humans, gastrointestinal neoplasms, diet, risk factors, meat, meat products, seafood, observational studies as topic, red meat
4 autores
- Jalal Poorolajal🇮🇷Hamedan University of Medical Sciences
- Younes Mohammadi🇮🇷Hamedan University of Medical Sciences
- Marzieh Fattahi-Darghlou🇮🇷Hamedan University of Medical Sciences
- Fatemeh Almasi-Moghadam🇮🇷 · autor de correspondenciaHamedan University of Medical Sciences
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
The association between red meat, fish, and processed meat consumption and the risk of developing gastrointestinal (GI) cancers remains inconclusive despite several investigations. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to update the existing scientific evidence.
Methods
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases until May 20, 2023. We analyzed observational studies that examined the associations between red and processed meat and fish consumption and GI cancers. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using the χ2 and τ2 tests, as well as I2 statistics. We explored the likelihood of publication bias using Begg's and Egger's tests and trim-and-fill analysis. We reported the overall effect sizes as odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model.
Results
Of the 21,004 studies identified, 95 studies involving 5,794,219 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The consumption of high levels of red meat, as compared to low levels, was found to significantly increase the risk of developing esophageal, pancreatic, liver, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. Similarly, the consumption of high levels of processed meat, as compared to low levels, significantly increased the risk of pancreatic, colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers. In contrast, the consumption of high levels of fish, as compared to low levels, significantly reduced the risk of colon, rectal, and colorectal cancers.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis provides updated evidence on the association between red meat, processed meat, and fish consumption and the risk of developing five major types of GI cancers.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC0).
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.