4.3 Review

Red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 611-627

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-012-0139-z

关键词

Red meat; Processed meat; Diet; Colorectal adenomas; Polyps; Meta-analysis; The Continuous Update Project

资金

  1. World Cancer Research Fund as part of the Continuous Update Project [2007/SP01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current evidence indicates that red and processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer; however, the association with colorectal adenomas is unclear. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas as part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund. PubMed and several other databases were searched for relevant studies from their inception up to 31 December 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model. Nineteen case-control studies and seven prospective studies were included in the analyses. The summary RR per 100 g/day of red meat was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.16-1.40, I (2) = 5 %, n = 16) for all studies combined, 1.20 (95 % CI 1.06-1.36, I (2) = 0 %, n = 6) for prospective studies, and 1.34 (95 % CI 1.12-1.59, I (2) = 31 %, n = 10) for case-control studies. The summary RR per 50 g/day of processed meat intake was 1.29 (95 % CI 1.10-1.53, I (2) = 27 %, n = 10) for all studies combined, 1.45 (95 % CI 1.10-1.90, I (2) = 0 %, n = 2) for prospective studies, and 1.23 (95 % CI 0.99-1.52, I (2) = 37 %, n = 8) for case-control studies. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between red meat (p (nonlinearity) < 0.001) and processed meat (p (nonlinearity) = 0.01) intake and colorectal adenoma risk. These results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat, but further prospective studies are warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据