Processed meat intake and incidence of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.

The objective was to use accumulated evidence to explore the association between processed meat intake and risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and to investigate the reliability of associations by evaluating patterns of risk by study population characteristics and research quality parameters. We included 29 observational prospective cohort studies with relative risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals for CRC according to various levels of processed meat consumption. Risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Data sources were PubMed and Embase up to January 2017. The summary relative risks for high versus low processed meat consumption and risk of CRC, colon, and rectal cancer were 1.13 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.26), 1.19 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.31), and 1.21 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.49), respectively. Similar estimates were observed for the dose-response analyses. Heterogeneity across studies was detected in most analytical models. The overall judgment showed that two out of 29 studies had a moderate risk of bias, 25 had a serious risk of bias, and 2 had a critical risk of bias. The bias domains most often rated critical were bias due to risk of confounding, bias due to missing data, and selective outcome reporting bias. Although this meta-analysis indicates a modest association between processed meat intake and an increased risk of CRC, our assessment of internal validity warrants a cautious interpretation of these results, as most of the included studies were judged to have serious or critical risks of bias.

Effect of health-promoting posters placed on the platforms of two train stations in Copenhagen, Denmark, on the choice between taking the stairs or the escalators: a secondary publication.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether posters placed on the platforms of two train stations in Copenhagen, promoting use of the stairs, would encourage people to use the stairs rather than the adjacent escalator. An additional purpose was to see if the effect of the intervention was maintained for a week after the poster was removed. MEASUREMENTS: The number of people using stairs and escalators at Copenhagen Central Station and Østerport Train Station in Copenhagen was recorded before and during posters promoting stair use were placed on the platforms, and a week after the posters were removed. Two years after the posters were removed, data were collected for 1 week at Østerport Train Station (long-term post-intervention). RESULTS: At Copenhagen Central Station, the overall stair use increased from 12% before the intervention to 16% (P<0.0001) during the intervention, giving an odds ratio (OR) of 1.5 for stair use. At Østerport Train Station in Copenhagen, the overall stair use increased from 23 to 31% during the intervention (P<0.0001), and dropped to 27% (P<0.0001) after the intervention (during the intervention, OR=1.5 (P<0.0001); after the intervention, OR=1.2 (P<0.0001)). At the long-term post-intervention recording, the overall stair use was 25%, which was not significantly different from the stair use found before the intervention. DISCUSSION: Posters promoting stair use placed on the platforms of train stations can result in increased stair use, during and after 1 week of intervention, and thereby seem useful only when up and immediately following intervention in changing health-promoting behavior among Danish men and women. These results agree well with results from other countries.