Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29781719›Full record

SynthesisNutrition and cancer2018

Serum Vitamin D Status and Breast Cancer Risk by Receptor Status: A Systematic Review.

Jessica L Tommie, Susan M Pinney, Laurie A Nommsen-Rivers

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrition and cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Vitamin K2 enhances the tumor suppressive effects of 1,25(OH)The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology · 2023
    Article
  7. Observational
  8. Vitamin D as a Potential Preventive Agent For Young Women's Breast Cancer.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica L Tommiea Department of Rehabilitation, Exercise, and Nutritional Sciences , College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA.
Susan M Pinneyb Department of Environmental Health , College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA.
Laurie A Nommsen-Riversa Department of Rehabilitation, Exercise, and Nutritional Sciences , College of Allied Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati , Cincinnati , Ohio , USA.
University of Cincinnati · USUniversity of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY RESEARCHP30ES006096 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI PINNEY, SUSAN MENGEL · 1992 to 2022
$35.4M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES006096
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe association between vitamin D status and breast cancer risk is equivocal. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses have examined this association stratified by receptor status. Our objective is to conduct a systematic review to answer the question, "Is there a relationship between lower serum/plasma vitamin D levels and increased risk of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) specifically?"

methodsWe systematically searched Embase and PubMed databases for published original research studies examining the risk of a breast cancer diagnosis according to vitamin D status. We excluded studies that did not provide risk estimates stratified by receptor status.

resultsFourteen studies met our criteria, including case-control, nested case-control, and case-series studies, reflecting the cumulative results of 13,135 breast cancer cases. When grouped by relevancy to TNBC, the proportion of analyses across all study types showing a significant association between vitamin D status and breast cancer diagnosis was 37% for non-TNBC analyses, 48% for analyses that included some TNBC cases, and 88% for TNBC analyses.

conclusionsOur results suggest that low vitamin D status may particularly increase the risk of TNBC, although more research is needed to determine if this association is causative. Women should be routinely screened for 25(OH)D deficiency.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesFemaleHumansLimit of DetectionTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsVitamin DVitamin D DeficiencyVitamin D

Identifiers

PMID29781719
PMCPMC9007063
OpenAlexW2788874997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.