Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23049713›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2012

Statin use and risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

Dipika Bansal, Krishna Undela, Sanjay D'Cruz, Fabrizio Schifano

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 209 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dipika BansalDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, India. drdeep97@gmail.com
Krishna Undela
Sanjay D'Cruz
Fabrizio Schifano
National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research · INGovernment Medical College and Hospital · INUniversity of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmerging evidence suggests that statins may decrease the risk of cancers. However, available evidence on prostate cancer (PCa) is conflicting. We therefore examined the association between statin use and risk of PCa by conducting a detailed meta-analysis of all observational studies published regarding this subject.

methodsLiterature search in PubMed database was undertaken through February 2012 looking for observational studies evaluating the association between statin use and risk of PCa. Before meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method). Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were also performed.

resultsA total of 27 (15 cohort and 12 case-control) studies contributed to the analysis. There was heterogeneity among the studies but no publication bias. Statin use significantly reduced the risk of both total PCa by 7% (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99, p = 0.03) and clinically important advanced PCa by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70-0.90, p<0.001). Long-term statin use did not significantly affect the risk of total PCa (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84-1.05, p = 0.31). Stratification by study design did not substantially influence the RR. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results. Cumulative meta-analysis showed a change in trend of reporting risk from positive to negative in statin users between 1993 and 2011.

conclusionsOur meta-analysis provides evidence supporting the hypothesis that statins reduce the risk of both total PCa and clinically important advanced PCa. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to identify the underlying biological mechanisms.

Indexed as

HumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleModels, StatisticalProstatic NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityTreatment OutcomeHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID23049713
PMCPMC3462187
OpenAlexW2039448072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.