ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2012
Type 2 diabetes mellitus and gender-specific risk for colorectal neoplasia.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk of colorectal adenoma: a meta-analysis of observational studies.BMC cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Significantly higher rates of multiple and proximally located adenomas among patients with diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional population-based study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2017Article
- High Blood Glucose Levels Correlate with Tumor Malignancy in Colorectal Cancer Patients.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: 20 years of development and recent progress.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Sex differences in type 2 diabetes: focus on disease course and outcomes.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2014Review
- Association of visceral obesity and early colorectal neoplasia.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Article
- The Rotterdam Study: 2014 objectives and design update.European journal of epidemiology · 2013Article
- Article
- Diabetes and sex: from pathophysiology to personalized medicine.Internal and emergency medicine · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although a positive association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and colorectal cancer is well established, uncertainty exists about risk differences in diabetic men and women when considering colorectal neoplasia (CN). The main objective was to examine gender-specific associations of T2DM with CN in a population-based cohort study of adults in Germany. This analysis is based on participants of the ESTHER-study, a population-based cohort study. Participants were 50-74 years old at baseline and underwent colonoscopy during 5 year follow-up. CN detected at colonoscopy were validated by medical records review. Total and gender-specific associations of T2DM at baseline and CN were estimated using log-binomial regression. Overall, 55 cases of CN were detected in 166 participants with T2DM and 328 cases in 1,360 participants without T2DM. In women, CN was found in 32 % of participants with T2DM and in 18 % without T2DM (adjusted prevalence ratio (PR): 1.66 95 % CI 1.04-2.64). In men, prevalence for CN was 35 % for those with T2DM and 33 % for those without T2DM (adjusted PR = 1.01; 95 % CI 0.71-1.43). T2DM might have a stronger impact on CN among women than among men. Further research should examine possible reasons for these differences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.