4.1 Article

Red Meat Intake and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 15, Issue 23, Pages 10421-10425

Publisher

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.23.10421

Keywords

Red meat; non-Hodgkins lymphoma; risk factor; meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: While the incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) has been rising worldwide, the reasons remain undefined. Recent research has focused on effect of red andf processed meat intake as a risk factor, but with inconclusive results. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of data published to date, to ascertain the overall association between intake and NHL. Materials and Methods: A published literature search was performed through Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Medline, and Science Citation Index Expanded databases for articles published in English. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using random or fixed effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using Chi-square and I2 statistics. Dissemination bias was evaluated by funnel plot analysis. We performed a formal meta-analysis using summary measures from these studies. Results: In total, 11 published studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis revealed that there was significant association between the red meat and NHL risk (OR=1.10, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.19, p=0.01). Additionally, there was showed significance association between processed red meat and NHL risk (OR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.29, p=0.001). In subgroup analysis, a statistical significant association was noted between diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (OR=1.20, 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.37, P=0.01) and red meat intake. Conclusions: In this meta-Analysis, there was evidence for association between consumption of red meat, or processed meat and risk of NHL, particularly with the DLBCL subtype in the red meat case.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available