Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkabstract only checked I-MEAT-02 standard review
Lancet Oncology summary of the IARC meat evaluation
Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat.
Overview
Bouvard V et al.. Lancet Oncol 2015 · PMID 26514947 · DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1
Same conclusions as I-MEAT-01 (no abstract available).
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Report IARC evaluation.
- How was the study done?
News summary.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
n/a
- What was actually found?
See I-MEAT-01.
- How large was the observed effect?
n/a
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
n/a
- What are the study's limitations?
Full text not accessed.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports limiting red meat.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Details beyond I-MEAT-01.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Bouvard V et al.
- Journal
- Lancet Oncol
- Year
- 2015
- Identifier
- PMID 26514947 DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1
- Verification
- verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
Grants listed in PubMed: NCI NIH HHS, World Health Organization
2. Research question
Carcinogenicity of red and processed meat.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Risk assessment – Summary of the IARC Monographs Working Group meeting (Lancet Oncology news item).
- Population
n/a
- Country
International
- Period
2015
- Sample size
n/a
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
n/a
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Red and processed meat
- Comparator
n/a
- Endpoints
Cancer.
- Statistical methods
n/a
5. Actual results
- Results
No abstract in PubMed (publication type 'News'); content summarised by IARC press release and Q&A (see I-MEAT-01).
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
See I-MEAT-01.
6. Strengths
- Primary published summary of the evaluation
7. Weaknesses
- No abstract; full text not accessed
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
News summary.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
n/a
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supporting C-MEAT-01.
11. Independent contrary findings
n/a
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Identifier verified; content taken from IARC documents (I-MEAT-01).
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
n/a
15. Linked fact checks
- Red meat should be limited: beef/buffalo at most once a week and lamb twice a week (protein not every day). – Studies supporting the claim