Association of red and processed meat consumption with cancer incidence and mortality: An umbrella review protocol

Ying Li, Shuping Yang, Chenyu Yu, Mei Wu, Sibin Huang, Yong Diao, Xunxun Wu, Huiyong Yang and Zhenyu Ma

PLOS ONE, 2025, vol. 20, issue 3, 1-12

Abstract: Background: Many meta-analyses have reported the associations between red and processed meat consumption and cancer outcomes, but few have assessed the credibility of the evidence. In addition, the results of dose-effect analyses of the association between red and processed meat consumption and cancer outcomes were inconsistently reported in different articles. Here we propose a protocol for an umbrella review (UR) that be designed to assess these associations and explore the potential dose-response relationships. Methods: We will independently search five electronic databases and two registers from inception to July 2024 for systematic reviews with meta-analysis concerning the associations of red and processed meat consumption with cancer incidence and mortality. We will conduct the statistical analysis between August 2024 and December 2024. Also, an up-to-date search for additional primary studies of cancer outcomes that were not included in previously published meta-analyses will be conducted. The main outcomes will include the incidence and mortality of any cancer related to red and processed meat exposure. A series of unique associations will be created based on the cancer outcome, exposure, and clinical or population setting. For each association, we will update the meta-analysis by combining studies included in prior meta-analyses and new studies that were not included in prior meta-analyses, and re-perform the meta-analysis using the random-effects models. According to the credibility of the evidence assessment, all associations with a P value of ≤ 0.05 will be categorized as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak evidence. All analyses will be performed in R (version 4.2.3). Results: The results of this UR are planned to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: The main aim of protocol publication is to get feed back from the reviewers to develop a standard protocol before its publication and after publication, it should guide this protocol to take up similar research by any researcher(s) by following meticulously this standard protocol. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023414550.

Date: 2025
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315436 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 15436&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0315436

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315436

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().