SynthesisNutrients2017
Calcium Intake and the Risk of Ovarian Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Nutrients, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between dietary intake and risk of ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Association between vitamin D/calcium intake and 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of ovarian cancer: a dose-response relationship meta-analysis.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Dietary protein intake and risk of ovarian cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis of observational studies.Bioscience reports · 2018Pooled it
- Article
- Calcium - a scoping review for Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.Food & nutrition research · 2023Article
- Review
- Serum calcium and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in relation to longevity, cardiovascular disease and cancer: a Mendelian randomization study.NPJ genomic medicine · 2021Article
- Nutrition in Gynecological Diseases: Current Perspectives.Nutrients · 2021Review
- Review of Mendelian Randomization Studies on Ovarian Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- The Effects of the Dietary and Nutrient Intake on Gynecologic Cancers.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Lactose Intolerance, Dairy Avoidance, and Treatment Options.Nutrients · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several epidemiological studies have evaluated the association between calcium intake and the risk of ovarian cancer. However, the results of these studies remain controversial. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to explore the association between calcium intake and the risk of ovarian cancer. Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science were searched for eligible publications up to April 2017. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. Small-study effect was estimated using Egger's test and the funnel plot. Among 15 epidemiological studies involving 493,415 participants and 7453 cases eligible for this meta-analysis, 13 studies were about dietary calcium intake, 4 studies about dairy calcium intake and 7 studies about dietary plus supplemental calcium intake. When comparing the highest with the lowest intake, the pooled RRs of ovarian cancer were 0.80 (95% CI 0.72-0.89) for dietary calcium, 0.80 (95% CI 0.66-0.98) for dairy calcium and 0.90 (95% CI 0.65-1.24) for dietary plus supplemental calcium, respectively. Dietary calcium was significantly associated with a reduced risk of ovarian cancer among cohort studies (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99) and among case-control studies (
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.