Comment on ‘Red and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies’
Year: 2012
Type: review
Abstract: Larsson and Wolk’s (2012) paper ‘Red and processed meat consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: meta-analysis of prospective studies’ contains a number of control problems, which makes their conclusions improbable. In the article, the authors state they have identified 11 prospective studies for their meta-analysis, but then admit the inherent problems with these studies as well as their own. Specifically, they state that, ‘our study has some limitations. First, as a meta-analysis of observational studies, we cannot rule out that individual studies may have failed to control for potential confounders, which may introduce bias in an unpredictable direction’. They also declare that ‘only a few studies adjusted for other potential confounders such as body mass index and history of diabetes’. Further, they add that ‘our findings were likely to be affected by imprecise measurement of red and processed meat consumption and potential confounders’. At this point, it would seem to be simple common sense or even prudent to have abandoned the analysis when you know that the data you are trying to extract information from, is itself inherently flawed. ‘This is a meta-analysis of 11 studies, none of which on their own link processed meat-eating with pancreatic cancer. So 11 × 0=zero. All the underlying studies suffer from the usual fatal flaws of weak association epidemiology: here that means, no knowledge of actual meat consumption, confounding risk factors for pancreatic cancer or biological plausibility’ ( Milloy, 2012 ). The failure to make allowances for fruit and vegetable intake, fat mass, and exercise habits are just a few of the confounders absent that may have a major role in pancreatic cancer development. The phrase, ‘garbage in garbage out’ appears to apply to this study. Does combining a number of weak or flawed studies make for a stronger one? What is the point? Who benefits? Certainly not the consumer who has been misled by the headlines associated with this study.
Source: British Journal of Cancer
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.111
Author: D Lightsey
Institution: Bakersfield College
Language: English
Topic: Nutritional Studies and Diet
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $5,190
OpenAlex ID: W2011161817