ArticlePeerJ2016
Poultry consumption and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Modifiable risk factors for prostate cancer in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Poultry Consumption and Human Health: How Much Is Really Known? A Systematically Searched Scoping Review and Research Perspective.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Several kinds of foods are hypothesized to be potential factors contributing to the variation of prostate cancer (PCa) incidence. But the effect of poultry on PCa is still inconsistent and no quantitative assessment has been published up to date. So we conducted this meta-analysis to clarify the association between them. Materials and Methods. We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Embase for studies examining the association between poultry consumption and PCa up to June, 2015. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) of the highest versus lowest poultry consumption categories were calculated by fixed-effect model or random-effect model. Results. A total of 27 (12 cohort and 15 case-control) studies comprising 23,703 cases and 469,986 noncases were eligible for inclusion. The summary RR of total PCa incidence was 1.03 (95% CI [0.95-1.11]) for the highest versus lowest categories of poultry intake. The heterogeneity between studies was not statistically significant (P = 0.768, I (2) = 28.5%). Synthesized analysis of 11 studies on high stage PCa and 8 studies on chicken exposure also demonstrated null association. We also did not obtain significant association in the subgroup of cohort study (RR = 1.04, 95% CI [0.98-1.10]), as well as in the subgroups of population-based case-control study and hospital-based case-control study. Then the studies were divided into three geographic groups: Western countries, Asia and South America. The pooled RRs in these areas did not reveal statistically significant association between poultry and PCa. Conclusions. This meta-analysis suggests no association between poultry consumption and PCa risk. Further well-designed studies are warranted to confirm the result.
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.