↓ Skip to main content

A review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of red and processed meat, meat cooking methods, heme iron, heterocyclic amines and prostate cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of red and processed meat, meat cooking methods, heme iron, heterocyclic amines and prostate cancer
Published in
Nutrition Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0111-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren C. Bylsma, Dominik D. Alexander

Abstract

Prostate cancer remains a significant public health concern among men in the U.S. and worldwide. Epidemiologic studies have generally produced inconclusive results for dietary risk factors for prostate cancer, including consumption of red and processed meats. We aimed to update a previous meta-analysis of prospective cohorts of red and processed meats and prostate cancer with the inclusion of new and updated cohort studies, as well as evaluate meat cooking methods, heme iron, and heterocyclic amine (HCA) intake exposure data. A comprehensive literature search was performed and 26 publications from 19 different cohort studies were included. Random effects models were used to calculate summary relative risk estimates (SRREs) for high vs. low exposure categories. Additionally, meta-regression analyses and stratified intake analyses were conducted to evaluate dose-response relationships. The SRREs for total prostate cancer and total red meat consumption, fresh red meat consumption, and processed meat consumption were 1.02 (95 % CI: 0.92-1.12), 1.06 (95 % CI: 0.97-1.16), and 1.05 (95 % CI: 1.01-1.10), respectively. Analyses were also conducted for the outcomes of non-advanced, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer when sufficient data were available, but these analyses did not produce significant results. No significant SRREs were observed for any of the meat cooking methods, HCA, or heme iron analyses. Dose-response analyses did not reveal significant patterns of associations between red or processed meat and prostate cancer. In conclusion, the results from our analyses do not support an association between red meat or processed consumption and prostate cancer, although we observed a weak positive summary estimate for processed meats.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 161 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 22%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Researcher 17 11%
Other 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 30 19%
Unknown 40 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 45 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 October 2021.
All research outputs
#784,407
of 19,196,040 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#244
of 1,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,443
of 386,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#44
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,196,040 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.