Table 3.
Studies evaluating red meat and endometrial cancer risk.
| Reference | Country | Age | Cases/Controls or total cohort | Type of study | Exposure | Contrast | OR (95% CI) | P for trend | Covariates considered* | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | E | S | H | R | |||||||||
| Zheng et al., 1995[29] | United States | 55–69 | 216/23,070 | Cohort | Red meat | Q3 vs. Q1 | 1.1 | >0.05 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| Potischman et al., 1993 [33] | United States | 20–74 | 399/296 | Population-based cc | Red meat | >8 vs. <2.9 times/week | 1.3 (0.8–2.4) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Shu et al., 1993 [9] | China | 18–74 | 268/268 | Population-based cc | Red meat | >576 vs. <200 g/week | 2.5 | <0.01 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Goodman et al., 1997 [34] | United States | 18–84 | 332/511 | Population-based cc | Red meat | >98.6 vs. <28.2 g/day | 2 | 0.03 | (A) | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Jain et al., 2000[39] | Canada | 552/562 | 30–79 | Population-based cc | Red meat | >53 vs. <15 g/day | 1.21 (0.83–1.77) | 0.55 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| McCann et al., 2000 [35] | United States | 40–85 | 232/639 | Population-based cc | Red meat | >17 vs. <8 times/month | 0.9 (0.5–1.4) | 0.79 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |
| Xu et al., 2006 [37] | China | 30–69X | 1,204/1,212 | Population-based cc | Red meat | >61.9 vs. <22.4 g/day | 1.4 (1.1–1.9) | <0.01 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Tavani et al., 2000 [23] | Italy | <75 | 750/7,990 | Hospital-based cc | Red meat (categorical) | High vs. low | 1.5 (1.2–1.8) | <0.01 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Red meat(continuous) | 1 serving/day | 1.5 (1.2–1.9) | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
*
Adjustment columns: A = Age; B = BMI/weight; E = Total Energy; S = Smoking; H = HRT/ERT use; R = Reproductive factors; (A): matched on age. Numbers in columns refer to the number of covariates adjusted for under that grouping. Abbreviations: Q: quantile; T: tertile; cc: case-control.