Author's Reply: Conceptual Confusion about "Processed" Meat

Etiquetas de revisión

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 (clasificado por nuestro filtro de IA)

Resultado principal

Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento

Consumo medido con

No se indica

Quién lo pagó

Financiación

Financiación no declarada

Publicación

Publicado

2026-03-26 · Nutr Rev

Editorial

Oxford University Press

Citado

0 citas · más que el 31% de estudios similares · 0.0× el promedio de su campo

Referencias

2 trabajos

Acceso

De pago

Áreas de investigación

Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Meat and Animal Product Quality · Digestive system and related health

Palabras clave

Confusion, MEDLINE, Conceptual model

5 autores

• Mina Nicole Händel🇩🇰 · autor de correspondenciaUniversity of Southern Denmark; Frederiksberg Hospital
• Jeanett Friis Rohde🇩🇰Frederiksberg Hospital
• Sofus Christian Larsen🇩🇰Frederiksberg Hospital
• Thorkild I A Sørensen🇩🇰🇨🇦University of Copenhagen; Novo Nordisk Foundation; Education and Early Childhood Development
• Berit L. Heitmann🇩🇰University of Copenhagen; Frederiksberg Hospital

Texto inicial

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

Este estudio se publicó sin resumen, como suele pasar con las cartas de investigación y los reportes breves. Así empieza.

We welcome the interest in our systematic review and meta-analysis1 and thank the correspondents B.V.E. Hyde and R.B. Hyde for their thoughtful comments. Our use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach2 was intended to provide transparency regarding the certainty of the evidence, not to imply causal inference. Accordingly, our interpretation emphasised the very small magnitude of the observed associations and the low certainty of evidence, explicitly acknowledging key methodological limitations in the underlying studies. As reflected in the GRADE assessment, the true effect may therefore differ substantially from the estimated association. It should also be noted that the small differences in adiposity measures, even if underestimated, are not necessarily reflecting differences in risk of obesity development. Heterogeneity in dietary exposure definitions is a longstanding challenge in nutritional epidemiology and remains an important target for methodological improvement. Importantly, however, non-differential exposure misclassification, eg, arising from heterogeneous or imprecise definitions, would be expected to bias associations towards the null. Moreover, rather than implying that such heterogeneity precludes evidence synthesis, we view the meta-analysis as a means of clarifying the extent, consistency, and limitations of the existing evidence. Thus, while we agree that greater conceptual clarity and precision in dietary exposure assessment are priorities for future research, we believe our cautious conclusions appropriately reflect both the strengths and the limitations of the current evidence base.

Texto vía OpenAlex. 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.