Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27384231›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2016

Blood concentrations of carotenoids and retinol and lung cancer risk: an update of the WCRF-AICR systematic review of published prospective studies.

Leila Abar, Ana Rita Vieira, Dagfinn Aune, Christophe Stevens, Snieguole Vingeliene, Deborah A Navarro Rosenblatt, Doris Chan, Darren C Greenwood, Teresa Norat

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Leila AbarDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Ana Rita VieiraDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Dagfinn AuneDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Christophe StevensDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Snieguole VingelieneDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Deborah A Navarro RosenblattDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Doris ChanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Darren C GreenwoodBiostatistics Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Teresa NoratDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom.
Imperial College London · GBMRC Biostatistics Unit · GBNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Carotenoids and retinol are considered biomarkers of fruits and vegetables intake, and are of much interest because of their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties; however, there is inconsistent evidence regarding their protective effects against lung cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of prospective studies of blood concentrations of carotenoids and retinol, and lung cancer risk. We identified relevant prospective studies published up to December 2014 by searching the PubMed and several other databases. We calculated summary estimates of lung cancer risk for the highest compared with lowest carotenoid and retinol concentrations and dose-response meta-analyses using random effects models. We used fractional polynomial models to assess potential nonlinear relationships. Seventeen prospective studies (18 publications) including 3603 cases and 458,434 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Blood concentrations of α-carotene, β-carotene, total carotenoids, and retinol were significantly inversely associated with lung cancer risk or mortality. The summary relative risk were 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.80) per 5 μg/100 mL of α-carotene (studies [n] = 5), 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.94) per 20 μg/100 mL of β-carotene (n = 9), 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54-0.81) per 100 μg/100 mL of total carotenoids (n = 4), and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.73-0.90) per 70 μg/100 mL of retinol (n = 8). In stratified analysis by sex, the significant inverse associations for β-carotene and retinol were observed only in men and not in women. Nonlinear associations were observed for β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin, and lycopene, with stronger associations observed at lower concentrations. There were not enough data to conduct stratified analyses by smoking. In conclusion, higher blood concentrations of several carotenoids and retinol are associated with reduced lung cancer risk. Further studies in never and former smokers are needed to rule out confounding by smoking.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCarotenoidsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleRetinal NeoplasmsRiskBiomarkersCarotenoidsCarotenoidscontinuous update projectlung cancermeta-analysisretinol

Identifiers

PMID27384231
PMCPMC4971935
OpenAlexW2272942646

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.