Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
RR 1.19 means 19% higher risk

Yep... That's what they claim.

In a Facebook post a frind of mine linked to http://www.naturalnews.com/034826_processed_meat_pancreatic_cancer_chemicals.html

"Processed meat once again linked to huge increases in pancreatic cancer"

As the linked article didn't have a link to the original research, I had to search the web and found
http://www.ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=130&a=135908&l=en&newsdep=130

Which identified a meta-study (DANGER! DANGER!) and linked to the paper http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/bjc2011585a.html

---
Results:

Eleven prospective studies, with 6643 pancreatic cancer cases, were included in the meta-analysis. An increase in red meat consumption of 120 g per day was associated with an overall relative risk (RR) of 1.13 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.93–1.39; Pheterogeneity<0.001). Red meat consumption was positively associated with pancreatic cancer risk in men (RR=1.29; 95% CI=1.08–1.53; Pheterogeneity=0.28; five studies), but not in women (RR=0.93; 95% CI=0.74–1.16; Pheterogeneity=0.21; six studies). The RR of pancreatic cancer for a 50 g per day increase in processed meat consumption was 1.19 (95% CI=1.04–1.36; Pheterogeneity=0.46).
---

Hence the RR of 1.19 "meaning" a 19% increase in the risk of cancer.

I provided a link to http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm to my friend so that he could work out what sort of nonsense is being published.

Re: RR 1.19 means 19% higher risk

I hope you aren't holding your breath in anticipation of their enlightenment. On an unrelated note, we have people here in the states fully convinced that insurance companies who cover Erectile Dysfunction (a malady that apparently affects about 40% of males, but only 10% of those males seek treatment -- a number which begs for the alternative drug to sell to women, an anaphrodisiac) to women needing contraceptive drugs (which apparently 98% of Catholics have used).

I can't say I support Insurance Providers covering ED, but failure to recognize that a medicine universally taken being paid for by a universal provider requires something in excess of the cost of the drug to provide (you have to administer the process, and administration is not free).