Search

Contains fulltext : 218124.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Our understanding of erosive tooth wear and its contributing factors has evolved considerably over the last decades. New terms have been continuously introduced, which frequently describe the same aspects of this condition, whereas other terms are being used inappropriately. This has led to unnecessary confusion and miscommunication between patients, professionals, and researchers. A group of 15 experts, selected by the European Organization for Caries Research (ORCA) and the Cariology Research Group of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), participated in a 2-day workshop to define the most commonly used terms in erosive tooth wear. A modified Delphi method was utilized to reach consensus. At least 80% agreement was achieved for all terms discussed and their definitions related to clinical conditions and processes, basic concepts, diagnosis, risk, and prevention and management of erosive tooth wear. Use of the terms agreed on will provide a better understanding of erosive tooth wear and intends to enable improved communication on this topic.

Contains fulltext : 218124.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Our understanding of erosive tooth wear and its contributing factors has evolved considerably over the last decades. New terms have been continuously introduced, which frequently describe the same aspects of this condition, whereas other terms are being used inappropriately. This has led to unnecessary confusion and miscommunication between patients, professionals, and researchers. A group of 15 experts, selected by the European Organization for Caries Research (ORCA) and the Cariology Research Group of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), participated in a 2-day workshop to define the most commonly used terms in erosive tooth wear. A modified Delphi method was utilized to reach consensus. At least 80% agreement was achieved for all terms discussed and their definitions related to clinical conditions and processes, basic concepts, diagnosis, risk, and prevention and management of erosive tooth wear. Use of the terms agreed on will provide a better understanding of erosive tooth wear and intends to enable improved communication on this topic.

Contains fulltext : 218124.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Our understanding of erosive tooth wear and its contributing factors has evolved considerably over the last decades. New terms have been continuously introduced, which frequently describe the same aspects of this condition, whereas other terms are being used inappropriately. This has led to unnecessary confusion and miscommunication between patients, professionals, and researchers. A group of 15 experts, selected by the European Organization for Caries Research (ORCA) and the Cariology Research Group of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), participated in a 2-day workshop to define the most commonly used terms in erosive tooth wear. A modified Delphi method was utilized to reach consensus. At least 80% agreement was achieved for all terms discussed and their definitions related to clinical conditions and processes, basic concepts, diagnosis, risk, and prevention and management of erosive tooth wear. Use of the terms agreed on will provide a better understanding of erosive tooth wear and intends to enable improved communication on this topic.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current evidence indicates that red and processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer; however, the association with colorectal adenomas is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas as part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund. DESIGN: PubMed and several other databases were searched for relevant studies from their inception up to 31 December 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Nineteen case-control studies and seven prospective studies were included in the analyses. The summary RR per 100 g/day of red meat was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.16-1.40, I (2) = 5 %, n = 16) for all studies combined, 1.20 (95 % CI 1.06-1.36, I (2) = 0 %, n = 6) for prospective studies, and 1.34 (95 % CI 1.12-1.59, I (2) = 31 %, n = 10) for case-control studies. The summary RR per 50 g/day of processed meat intake was 1.29 (95 % CI 1.10-1.53, I (2) = 27 %, n = 10) for all studies combined, 1.45 (95 % CI 1.10-1.90, I (2) = 0 %, n = 2) for prospective studies, and 1.23 (95 % CI 0.99-1.52, I (2) = 37 %, n = 8) for case-control studies. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between red meat (p nonlinearity < 0.001) and processed meat (p nonlinearity = 0.01) intake and colorectal adenoma risk. CONCLUSION: These results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat, but further prospective studies are warranted.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current evidence indicates that red and processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer; however, the association with colorectal adenomas is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas as part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund. DESIGN: PubMed and several other databases were searched for relevant studies from their inception up to 31 December 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Nineteen case-control studies and seven prospective studies were included in the analyses. The summary RR per 100 g/day of red meat was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.16-1.40, I (2) = 5 %, n = 16) for all studies combined, 1.20 (95 % CI 1.06-1.36, I (2) = 0 %, n = 6) for prospective studies, and 1.34 (95 % CI 1.12-1.59, I (2) = 31 %, n = 10) for case-control studies. The summary RR per 50 g/day of processed meat intake was 1.29 (95 % CI 1.10-1.53, I (2) = 27 %, n = 10) for all studies combined, 1.45 (95 % CI 1.10-1.90, I (2) = 0 %, n = 2) for prospective studies, and 1.23 (95 % CI 0.99-1.52, I (2) = 37 %, n = 8) for case-control studies. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between red meat (p nonlinearity < 0.001) and processed meat (p nonlinearity = 0.01) intake and colorectal adenoma risk. CONCLUSION: These results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat, but further prospective studies are warranted.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current evidence indicates that red and processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer; however, the association with colorectal adenomas is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas as part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund. DESIGN: PubMed and several other databases were searched for relevant studies from their inception up to 31 December 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Nineteen case-control studies and seven prospective studies were included in the analyses. The summary RR per 100 g/day of red meat was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.16-1.40, I (2) = 5 %, n = 16) for all studies combined, 1.20 (95 % CI 1.06-1.36, I (2) = 0 %, n = 6) for prospective studies, and 1.34 (95 % CI 1.12-1.59, I (2) = 31 %, n = 10) for case-control studies. The summary RR per 50 g/day of processed meat intake was 1.29 (95 % CI 1.10-1.53, I (2) = 27 %, n = 10) for all studies combined, 1.45 (95 % CI 1.10-1.90, I (2) = 0 %, n = 2) for prospective studies, and 1.23 (95 % CI 0.99-1.52, I (2) = 37 %, n = 8) for case-control studies. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between red meat (p nonlinearity < 0.001) and processed meat (p nonlinearity = 0.01) intake and colorectal adenoma risk. CONCLUSION: These results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat, but further prospective studies are warranted.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current evidence indicates that red and processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer; however, the association with colorectal adenomas is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas as part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund. DESIGN: PubMed and several other databases were searched for relevant studies from their inception up to 31 December 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Nineteen case-control studies and seven prospective studies were included in the analyses. The summary RR per 100 g/day of red meat was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.16-1.40, I (2) = 5 %, n = 16) for all studies combined, 1.20 (95 % CI 1.06-1.36, I (2) = 0 %, n = 6) for prospective studies, and 1.34 (95 % CI 1.12-1.59, I (2) = 31 %, n = 10) for case-control studies. The summary RR per 50 g/day of processed meat intake was 1.29 (95 % CI 1.10-1.53, I (2) = 27 %, n = 10) for all studies combined, 1.45 (95 % CI 1.10-1.90, I (2) = 0 %, n = 2) for prospective studies, and 1.23 (95 % CI 0.99-1.52, I (2) = 37 %, n = 8) for case-control studies. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between red meat (p nonlinearity < 0.001) and processed meat (p nonlinearity = 0.01) intake and colorectal adenoma risk. CONCLUSION: These results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat, but further prospective studies are warranted.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current evidence indicates that red and processed meat intake increases the risk of colorectal cancer; however, the association with colorectal adenomas is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of red and processed meat intake and risk of colorectal adenomas as part of the Continuous Update Project of the World Cancer Research Fund. DESIGN: PubMed and several other databases were searched for relevant studies from their inception up to 31 December 2011. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Nineteen case-control studies and seven prospective studies were included in the analyses. The summary RR per 100 g/day of red meat was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.16-1.40, I (2) = 5 %, n = 16) for all studies combined, 1.20 (95 % CI 1.06-1.36, I (2) = 0 %, n = 6) for prospective studies, and 1.34 (95 % CI 1.12-1.59, I (2) = 31 %, n = 10) for case-control studies. The summary RR per 50 g/day of processed meat intake was 1.29 (95 % CI 1.10-1.53, I (2) = 27 %, n = 10) for all studies combined, 1.45 (95 % CI 1.10-1.90, I (2) = 0 %, n = 2) for prospective studies, and 1.23 (95 % CI 0.99-1.52, I (2) = 37 %, n = 8) for case-control studies. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between red meat (p nonlinearity < 0.001) and processed meat (p nonlinearity = 0.01) intake and colorectal adenoma risk. CONCLUSION: These results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat, but further prospective studies are warranted.