ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2013
Exposure to bisphosphonates and risk of colorectal cancer.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bisphosphonates and risk of cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2020Pooled it
- Oral bisphosphonates and colorectal cancer.Scientific reports · 2017Trial
- Risk of colorectal cancer in users of bisphosphonates: analysis of population-based electronic health records.European journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
- Oral bisphosphonates and colon cancer: an update.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2015Review
- Cancer therapeutics revisited; novel drugs targeting cell signalling pathways, genome wide association studies and other trials and tribulations.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal and in vitro studies suggest that the use of bisphosphonates (BPs) may be associated with reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, results from these studies have been inconsistent. The aim of our study was to review and summarize the evidence provided by longitudinal studies on the association between BP use and CRC risk A comprehensive literature search for articles published up to October 2012 was performed. Prior to performing a meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Relative risks (RRs) or odds ratios were calculated. Six reports (four case-control studies and two cohort studies) published between 2010 and 2012 were identified. There was evidence of an association between any use of BPs and CRC risk using a fixed-effects model (RR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.74, 0.85) and a random-effects model (RR = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.90). However, we did not observe any evidence of a trend with increasing duration of use. Our findings indicate that there is evidence of an association between any use of BP and reduced CRC risk. However, this subject deserves further investigation.
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.