SynthesisMedicine2015
Citrus Fruit Intake Substantially Reduces the Risk of Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Cancer and Obesity: An Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) Clinical Practice Statement (CPS) 2022.Obesity pillars · 2022Article
- Fresh fruit consumption may decrease the long-term risk of esophageal cancer mortality: A 30-year follow-up study in the Linxian Dysplasia Nutrition Intervention trial (NIT).Thoracic cancer · 2020Article
- Cancers Due to Excess Weight, Low Physical Activity, and Unhealthy Diet.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2018Article
- Fruit and vegetable consumption, Helicobacter pylori antibodies, and gastric cancer risk: A pooled analysis of prospective studies in China, Japan, and Korea.International journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Chemopreventive Agents and Inhibitors of Cancer Hallmarks: May Citrus Offer New Perspectives?Nutrients · 2016Review
- Coffee and cancer risk: A meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- A suggestion for quality assessment in systematic reviews of observational studies in nutritional epidemiology.Epidemiology and health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many epidemiologic studies indicate a potential association between fruit and vegetable intake and various cancers. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to investigate the association between citrus fruit intake and esophageal cancer risk. The authors conducted a comprehensive search on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception until July 2014. Studies presenting information about citrus intake and esophageal cancer were analyzed. The authors extracted the categories of citrus intake, study-specific odds ratio or relative risk, and the P value and associated 95% confidence intervals for the highest versus lowest dietary intake of citrus fruit level. The association was quantified using meta-analysis of standard errors with a random-effects model. Thirteen case-control studies and 6 cohort studies were eligible for inclusion. Citrus intake may significantly reduce risk of esophageal cancer (summary odds ratio = 0.63; 95% confidence interval = 0.52-0.75; P = 0), without notable publication bias (intercept = -0.79, P = 0.288) and with significant heterogeneity across studies (I = 52%). The results from epidemiologic studies suggest an inverse association between citrus fruit intake and esophageal cancer risk. The significant effect is consistent between case-control and cohort studies. Larger prospective studies with rigorous methodology should be considered to validate the association between citrus fruits and esophageal cancer.
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.