Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26908425›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2016

Body mass index and risk of brain tumors: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

D Zhang, J Chen, J Wang, S Gong, H Jin, P Sheng, X Qi, L Lv, Y Dong, L Hou

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Insulin and cancer: a tangled web.The Biochemical journal · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

D ZhangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
J ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
J WangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
S GongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
H JinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
P ShengDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
X QiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
L LvDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Y DongDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
L HouDepartment of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesData regarding the relationships between body mass index (BMI) and brain tumors are inconsistent, especially for the commonly seen gliomas and meningiomas. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis to unravel the issue. SUBJECTS/

methodsCochrane Library, PubMed and Embase were searched for pertinent case-control and cohort studies updated to November 2014. Dose-response and quantitative analysis were conducted with random-effect model.

resultsSixteen studies were included, containing 3 887 156 participants and 11 614 cases. In categorical analysis for the relationships between abnormal weight and BMI, the summary risk ratio (RR) of brain tumors was 1.34 (95% confidential interval (CI), 1.15-1.56) for obesity, 1.12 (95% CI, 1.05-1.19) for overweight and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64-0.93) for underweight; the summary RR of gliomas was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.02-1.26) for overweight and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.58-0.88) for underweight; the summary RR of meningiomas was 1.48 (95% CI, 1.30-1.69) for obesity and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.07-1.31) for overweight. In dose-response analysis, for every 5 kg/m(2) increment of BMI, the summary RR was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.07-1.20) for overall brain tumors, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.19) for gliomas and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.14-1.25) for meningiomas.

conclusionsExcess weight was associated with increased risk of brain tumors and meningiomas but not with gliomas. Selective screening for brain tumors among obesity, especially for the females, might be more instructive.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBrain NeoplasmsFemaleGliomaHumansMaleMeningiomaMiddle AgedObesityOverweightThinnessYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26908425

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.