↓ Skip to main content

A review and meta-analysis of prospective studies of red and processed meat intake and prostate cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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 intake and prostate cancer
Published in
Nutrition Journal, November 2010
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-9-50
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominik D Alexander, Pamela J Mink, Colleen A Cushing, Bonnie Sceurman

Abstract

Over the past decade, several large epidemiologic investigations of meat intake and prostate cancer have been published. Therefore, a meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted to estimate potential associations between red or processed meat intake and prostate cancer. Fifteen studies of red meat and 11 studies of processed meat were included in the analyses. High vs. low intake and dose-response analyses were conducted using random effects models to generate summary relative risk estimates (SRRE). No association between high vs. low red meat consumption (SRRE = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.96-1.05) or each 100 g increment of red meat (SRRE = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.95-1.05) and total prostate cancer was observed. Similarly, no association with red meat was observed for advanced prostate cancer (SRRE = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94-1.09). A weakly elevated summary association between processed meat and total prostate cancer was found (SRRE = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.99-1.12), although heterogeneity was present, the association was attenuated in a sub-group analysis of studies that adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors, and publication bias likely affected the summary effect. In conclusion, the results of this meta-analysis are not supportive of an independent positive association between red or processed meat intake and prostate cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 132 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 18%
Student > Bachelor 24 17%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 29 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#1,375,119
of 22,813,792 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#379
of 1,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,957
of 100,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,813,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,428 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 100,488 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.