Meta-analysiscited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-DRY-13 standard review

Dairy and lymphoma: link only in recall-based studies

Dairy Product Consumption and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis.

Overview

Wang J et al.. Nutrients 2016 · PMID 26927171 · DOI 10.3390/nu8030120

Cohort studies found no association (RR 1.02).

Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: low

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: Dairy and NHL.
How was the study done?: Meta-analysis of 16 studies.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: Mixed populations.
What was actually found?: Overall link driven by case-control studies.
How large was the observed effect?: Cohorts RR 1.02 (0.88-1.17).
What do the results mean in everyday life?: No reliable evidence of harm.
What are the study's limitations?: Recall bias.
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Does not support the claim well.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: Moderate.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Causation.

Dairy consumption and non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk.

Study design: Meta-analysis – Meta-analysis of observational studies (case-control and cohort).
Population: Participants of 16 articles
Country: Multinational
Period: Search to Oct 2015
Sample size: 16 articles
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Observational studies on dairy and NHL.

Exposure / intervention: Total dairy, milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, yogurt.
Comparator: Lowest category; dose-response
Endpoints: NHL and subtypes.
Statistical methods: Random effects; restricted cubic spline.

Results: Highest vs lowest: total dairy RR 1.20 (1.02-1.42), milk 1.41 (1.08-1.84), butter 1.31 (1.04-1.65), cheese 1.14 (0.96-1.34), ice cream 1.57 (1.11-2.20), yogurt 0.78 (0.54-1.12). Case-control RR 1.41 (1.17-1.70) vs cohort RR 1.02 (0.88-1.17). Dose-response per 200 g/d total dairy 1.05 (1.00-1.10).
Absolute risks: not reported
Authors' conclusion: Dairy consumption, but not yogurt, may increase NHL risk; more prospective cohorts needed.

Orienting tool: AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment: simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment: no
Overall risk of bias: some concerns
Rationale: Mixed designs pooled; conclusions stronger than cohort data allow.

Cohort subgroup null; overall estimate likely inflated by case-control bias.

Mixed for C-DRY-12.

Its cohort subgroup.

Moderate.

Weak evidence.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	low
Risk of bias	high
Precision of results	moderate
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	not replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	inconsistent
Regional transferability	moderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	not verifiable

Prospective data.

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study: Listed in bibliography without interpretation.
A. What was actually studied?: Dairy and NHL.
B. What did the authors find?: Overall positive; cohort studies null; yogurt not associated.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: May increase NHL risk except yogurt.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Implied as dairy harm.
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Weak support; cohort data null. Note that butter (allowed in the system) was associated (RR 1.31) and yogurt (forbidden) was not.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): not verifiable