Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta‐analysis of prospective studies

By S. Larsson, A. Wolk. International Journal of Cancer, 2006

645 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Breaking the Habit: On the Highly Habitualized Nature of Meat Consumption and Implementation Intentions as One Effective Way of Reducing It (2018, background): “Experts also agree that lower consumption of animal products could yield significant cobenefits for health (Larson & Wolk, 2006), global food security (Ravilious, 2013), water security (Jalava, Kummu, Porkka, Siebert, & Varis, 2014), and biodiversity (Westhoek et al., 2011).”
Obesity and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis of 31 Studies with 70,000 Events (2007, background): “A recent meta-analysis (55) of 15 cohort studies (f8,000 events) suggested that the highest versus the lowest intake categories of red and processed meat were significantly associated with 28% and 21% increased risk of colorectal cancer, respectively.”
Red meat consumption: an overview of the risks and benefits. (2010, positive): “Generally, the proposed carcinogenicity of meat has been assigned to the type of meat consumed (red or processed), the method of cooking, the quantity consumed and the individual genetic risk (Larsson & Wolk, 2006).”
Statistically Controlling for Confounding Constructs Is Harder than You Think (2016, background): “For example, epidemiologists have concluded that eating processed meat significantly increases colorectal cancer risk, on the basis of prospective studies that consistently find a positive association between the two variables when controlling for a host of confounding variables [12,13].”