Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26855875›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2016

Poultry consumption and prostate cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Qian He, Zheng-Ce Wan, Xiao-Bing Xu, Jing Wu, Guang-Lian Xiong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

5 authors.

Qian HeKey Laboratory of Environment and Health, Ministry of Education & Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan , China.
Zheng-Ce WanKey Laboratory of Environment and Health, Ministry of Education & Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan , China.
Xiao-Bing XuKey Laboratory of Environment and Health, Ministry of Education & Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan , China.
Jing WuKey Laboratory of Environment and Health, Ministry of Education & Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan , China.
Guang-Lian XiongKey Laboratory of Environment and Health, Ministry of Education & Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology , Wuhan , China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Meta-analysisPoultryProstate cancerRisk

Identifiers

PMID26855875
PMCPMC4741082

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.