SynthesisPloS one2017
Height and lung cancer risk: A meta-analysis of observational studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating risk factors for lung cancer among never-smoking individuals using two Australian studies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
- The Growth Hormone Receptor: Mechanism of Receptor Activation, Cell Signaling, and Physiological Aspects.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe association between height and lung cancer risk has been investigated by epidemiological studies but the results are inconsistent. This meta-analysis was to evaluate whether the height is associated with lung cancer.
methodsWe identified relevant articles by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, and reviewed the reference lists of selected papers. A random effect model was used to calculate summary odds ratios (OR) and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Publication bias was estimated using Egger's regression asymmetry test.
resultsWe included a total 16 studies (15 prospective studies and one case-control study) on adult height and lung cancer risk in the meta-analysis. Overall, per 10-cm height increases were associated with increased risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03-1.09, I2 = 43.6%).
conclusionsIn this meta-analysis, high adult height is related to increased lung cancer risk. Well-designed, large prospective studies are required to obtain a better indication of the relationship.
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.