Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Food groups and risk of colorectal cancer

Open access
Schwingshackl, Lukas, Schwedhelm, Carolina, Hoffmann, Georg, Knüppel, Sven, Laure Preterre, Anne, Iqbal, Khalid, Bechthold, Angela, De Henauw, Stefaan, Michels, Nathalie, Devleesschauwer, Brecht, Boeing, Heiner, Schlesinger, Sabrina·2018·International Journal of Cancer
DOI 10.1002/ijc.31198
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to summarize the evidence on the relationship between intake of 12 major food groups, including whole grains, refined grains, vegetables, fruit, nuts, legumes, eggs, dairy, fish, red meat, processed meat and sugar‐sweetened beverages with risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and Embase for prospective studies investigating the association between these 12 food groups and risk of CRC until April 2017. Summary risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a random effects model for high vs. low intake categories, as well as for linear and nonlinear relationships. An inverse association was observed for whole grains (RR 30g/d: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93, 0.97; n = 9 studies), vegetables (RR 100g/d: 0.97, 95% CI 0.96, 0.98; n = 15), fruit (RR 100g/d: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95, 0.99; n = 16) and dairy (RR 200g/d: 0.93, 95% CI 0.91, 0.94; n = 15), while a positive association for red meat (RR 100g/d: 1.12, 95% CI 1.06, 1.19; n = 21) and processed meat (RR 50g/d: 1.17, 95% CI 1.10, 1.23; n = 16), was seen in the linear dose‐response meta‐analysis. Some evidence for nonlinear relationships was observed between vegetables, fruit and dairy and risk of colorectal cancer. Findings of this meta‐analysis showed that a diet characterized by high intake of whole grains, vegetables, fruit and dairy products and low amounts of red meat and processed meat was associated with lower risk of CRC.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.31198

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Schwingshackl, L., Schwedhelm, C., Hoffmann, G., Knüppel, S., Laure Preterre, A., Iqbal, K., Bechthold, A., De Henauw, S., Michels, N., Devleesschauwer, B., Boeing, H., & Schlesinger, S.
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-12-14
Volume
142
Issue
9
Pages
1748-1758
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
DOI
10.1002/ijc.31198
OpenAlex
W2773268832
Cited by
340
References
13
FWCI
21.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.