Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376926›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

Cancer and central nervous system disorders: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and updated meta-analyses of observational studies.

Ferrán Catalá-López, Brian Hutton, Jane A Driver, Matthew J Page, Manuel Ridao, José M Valderas, Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo, Jaume Forés-Martos, Salvador Martínez, Ricard Gènova-Maleras and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews.Evidence-based mental health · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

15 authors at 12 institutions in 5 countries.

Ferrán Catalá-LópezDepartment of Medicine, University of Valencia/INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain. ferran_catala@hotmail.com.
Brian HuttonClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jane A DriverGeriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Matthew J PageSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Manuel RidaoInstituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Zaragoza, Spain.
José M ValderasHealth Services and Policy Research Group, Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Adolfo Alonso-ArroyoDepartment of History of Science and Documentation, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Jaume Forés-MartosDepartment of Medicine, University of Valencia/INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain.
Salvador MartínezInstituto de Neurociencias de Alicante, Universidad Miguel Hernández-Spanish National Research Council (UMH-CSIC), San Juan de Alicante, Spain.
Ricard Gènova-MalerasDirectorate General for Public Health, Regional Health Council, Madrid, Spain.
Diego Macías-Saint-GeronsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Agency (AEMPS), Madrid, Spain.
Benedicto Crespo-FacorroDepartment of Psychiatry, Hospital Marqués de Valdecilla, University of Cantabria/IDIVAL and CIBERSAM, Santander, Spain.
Eduard VietaHospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS) and CIBERSAM, Barcelona, Spain.
Alfonso ValenciaStructural Biology and Biocumputing Programme, Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), Madrid, Spain.
Rafael Tabarés-SeisdedosDepartment of Medicine, University of Valencia/INCLIVA Health Research Institute and CIBERSAM, Valencia, Spain. rafael.tabares@uv.es.
INCLIVA Health Research Institute · ESAgencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios · ESBrigham and Women's Hospital · USConsejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas · ESConsorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer · ESInstituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud · ESInstituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla · ESInstituto de Neurociencias · ESOttawa Hospital Research InstituteUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya · ESUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study will be to synthesize the epidemiological evidence and evaluate the validity of the associations between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. METHODS/

designWe will perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews and conduct updated meta-analyses of observational studies (cohort and case-control) investigating the association between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from any cancer or specific types of cancer. Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science will be used to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. In addition, online databases will be checked for observational studies published outside the time frames of previous reviews. Eligible central nervous system disorders will be Alzheimer's disease, anorexia nervosa, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, depression, Down's syndrome, epilepsy, Huntington's disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. The primary outcomes will be cancer incidence and cancer mortality in association with a central nervous system disorder. Secondary outcome measures will be site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, respectively. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study quality/risk of bias will be appraised by two reviewers independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary observational studies will be conducted where appropriate. Parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity are pre-specified. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for cancer outcomes. DISCUSSION: Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the associations between central nervous system disorders and cancer and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important site-specific cancer outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016052762.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicCentral Nervous System DiseasesHumansIncidenceMeta-Analysis as TopicNeoplasmsObservational Studies as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAlzheimer’s diseaseAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisAnorexia nervosaAutism spectrum disordersBipolar disorderCancerCentral nervous system disorderDepressionDown’s syndromeEpilepsyHuntington’s diseaseMeta-analysisMultiple sclerosisParkinson’s diseaseSchizophreniaSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28376926
PMCPMC5379758
OpenAlexW2604961565

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.