Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25087668›Full record

ArticleUrologic oncology2014

Commentary on "The association between physical activity and renal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis." Behrens G, Leitzmann MF, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany. Br J Cancer 2013; 108(4):798-811. [Epub 2013 Feb 14]. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.37.

Stephen Boorjian

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urologic oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stephen Boorjian

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical activity may decrease renal cancer risk by reducing obesity, blood pressure, insulin resistance, and lipid peroxidation. Despite plausible biologic mechanisms linking increased physical activity to decreased risk for renal cancer, few epidemiologic studies have been able to report a clear inverse association between physical activity and renal cancer, and no meta-analysis is available on the topic.

methodsWe searched the literature using PubMed and Web of Knowledge to identify published non-ecologic epidemiologic studies quantifying the relationship between physical activity and renal cancer risk in individuals without a cancer history. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, including information from 19 studies based on a total of 2,327,322 subjects and 10,756 cases. The methodologic quality of the studies was examined using a comprehensive scoring system.

resultsComparing high vs low levels of physical activity, we observed an inverse association between physical activity and renal cancer risk (summary relative risk (RR) from random-effects meta-analysis=0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.79-0.97). Summarising risk estimates from high-quality studies strengthened the inverse association between physical activity and renal cancer risk (RR=0.78; 95% CI=0.66-0.92). Effect modification by adiposity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, smoking, gender, or geographic region was not observed.

conclusionOur comprehensive meta-analysis provides strong support for an inverse relation of physical activity to renal cancer risk. Future high-quality studies are required to discern which specific types, intensities, frequencies, and durations of physical activity are needed for renal cancer risk reduction.

Indexed as

Motor ActivityHumansKidney Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID25087668
OpenAlexW2107995874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.