Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net. Accessed October 30, 2012.
2.
ConcatoJ. Observational versus experimental studies: what’s the evidence for a hierarchy?NeuroRx. 2004;1:341-347.
3.
CohenHW. Limitations in an ecological study: a review. Am J Hypertens. 2005;18:750.
4.
ChoEChenWYHunterDJ. Red meat intake and risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(2): 2253-2259.
5.
World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research; 2007.
6.
AlexanderDDMorimotoLMMinkPJCushingCJA. A review and meta-analysis of red and processed meat consumption and breast cancer. Nutr Res Rev. 2010;23(2):349-365.
7.
FuZDemingSLFairAM. Well-done meat intake and meat-derived mutagen exposures in relation to breast cancer risk: the Nashville Breast Health Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;129(3):919-928.
8.
Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
9.
ChungMLeeJTerasawaTLauJTrikalinosTA. Vitamin D with or without calcium supplementation for prevention of cancer and fractures: an updated meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(12):827-838.
10.
ChlebowskiRT. Vitamin D and breast cancer: interpreting current evidence. Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13:217-226.
11.
BollandMJGreyAGambleGDReidIR. Calcium and vitamin D supplements and health outcomes: a reanalysis of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) limited-access data set. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(4):1144-1149.
12.
ChlebowskiRTPettingerMKooperbergC. Caution in reinterpreting the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) calcium and vitamin D trial breast cancer results. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(1):258-259.
13.
RaimondiSJohanssonHMaisonneuvePGandiniS. Review and meta-analysis on vitamin D receptor polymorphisms and cancer risk. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30(7):1170-1180.
