4.7 Review

Red and processed meat consumption and cancer outcomes: Umbrella review

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 356, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129697

Keywords

Red meat; Processed meat; Cancer; Umbrella review; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82000721]
  2. Department of Science and Technology of Sichuan Province [2020YJ0054]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This umbrella review evaluated the associations between red and processed meat consumption and multiple cancer outcomes. It found that red meat consumption was related to increased risk of various cancers, while processed meat consumption was associated with higher risk of cancer mortality and specific cancer types. Increasing consumption of red and processed meat was found to be linked to higher risks of developing cancer.
The purpose of this umbrella review was to evaluate the quality of evidence, validity and biases of the associations between red and processed meat consumption and multiple cancer outcomes according to existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The umbrella review identified 72 meta-analyses with 20 unique outcomes for red meat and 19 unique outcomes for processed meat. Red meat consumption was associated with increased risk of overall cancer mortality, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), bladder, breast, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Processed meat consumption might increase the risk of overall cancer mortality, NHL, bladder, breast, colorectal, esophageal, gastric, nasopharyngeal, oral cavity and oropharynx and prostate cancer. Dose-response analyses revealed that 100 g/d increment of red meat and 50 g/d increment of processed meat consumption were associated with 11%-51% and 8%-72% higher risk of multiple cancer outcomes, respectively, and seemed to be not correlated with any benefit.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available