Table 5.
Subgroup analysis and meta-regression of the association between processed meat consumption and the risk of development of ulcerative colitis.
| Subgroup | N | Heterogeneity test | Estimate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I2 | p | RR (95%CI) | p | ||
| Study design | |||||
| Cohort study | 3 | 42.30% | 0.177 | 1.292 (1.012, 1.649) | 0.040 |
| Case control study | 4 | 99.60% | <0.001 | 2.193 (1.251, 3.842) | 0.006 |
| Dietary characteristics | |||||
| Western-style diet | 3 | 42.30% | 0.177 | 1.292 (1.012, 1.649) | 0.040 |
| Eastern-style diet | 4 | 99.60% | <0.001 | 2.193 (1.251, 3.842) | 0.006 |
| Meat type | |||||
| Processed meat | 5 | 96.10% | <0.001 | 1.292 (1.013, 1.649) | 0.039 |
| ham and sausage | 1 | / | / | 0.800 (0.203, 3.150) | 0.750 |
| Grilled meat | 1 | / | / | 14.079 (3.022, 65.596) | 0.001 |
| Dietary assessment tool | |||||
| T1 | 3 | 64.70% | 0.059 | 1.352 (1.003, 1.821) | 0.048 |
| T2 | 2 | 90.40% | 0.001 | 1.124 (0.775, 1.629) | 0.538 |
| T3 | 1 | / | / | 0.970 (0.916, 1.027) | 0.295 |
| T5 | 1 | / | / | 0.800 (0.203, 3.150) | 0.750 |
| Outcome measurement | |||||
| A | 5 | 98.20% | <0.001 | 1.479 (1.051, 2.081) | 0.025 |
| B | 2 | 0.00% | 0.579 | 1.180 (0.842, 1.653) | 0.337 |
| Adjusted factors | |||||
| Geographical region | |||||
| Yes | 3 | 54% | 0.114 | 1.476 (1.049, 2.078) | 0.026 |
| No | 4 | 95.00% | <0.001 | 1.182 (0.844, 1.656) | 0.331 |
| Family history of IBD | |||||
| Yes | 1 | / | / | 14.079 (3.022, 65.596) | 0.001 |
| No | 6 | 95.20% | <0.001 | 1.292 (1.013, 1.649) | 0.039 |
| Physical activity | |||||
| Yes | 4 | 97.00% | <0.001 | 1.292 (1.012, 1.649) | 0.040 |
| No | 3 | 73.40% | 0.023 | 2.946 (1.373, 6.324) | 0.006 |
N, number; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; RR, inrelative risk; T1, country-specific validated food frequency questionnaires; T2, semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires; T3, food frequency questionnaires; T5, self-administered questionnaire; A, self-reported questionnaire; B, individual interviews or self-reported questionnaire.