ArticleKorean journal of family medicine2018
Use of Hypnotics and Risk of Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.
Article in Korean journal of family medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypnotics and Risk of Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Pooled it
- Benzodiazepine Use and Long-Term Mortality in South Korean Adult Population: A Cohort Study.Yonsei medical journal · 2021Article
- Hypnotic drug risks of mortality, infection, depression, and cancer: but lack of benefit.F1000Research · 2016Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious observational epidemiological studies have shown inconsistent results on the relationship between hypnotics use and risk of cancer. To determine the association between hypnotics use and risk of cancer, we conducted a meta-analysis of available literature.
methodsWe searched databases PubMed, EMBASE, and the bibliographies of relevant articles to locate additional publications in February 2016. Three evaluators independently reviewed and selected eligible studies based on pre-determined selection criteria.
resultsA total of six observational epidemiological studies including three case-control studies and three cohort studies, which involved 1,830,434 participants (202,629 hypnotics users and 1,627,805 non-users), were included in the final analyses. In a random-effects meta-analysis, compared with non-use of hypnotics, the odds ratio for overall hypnotics use was 1.29 for various cancers (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.53). Subgroup meta-analyses by various factors such as study design, type of case-control study, study region, and methodological quality of study revealed consistent findings.
conclusionOur findings from a meta-analysis of low-biased epidemiological studies suggested evidence linking the use of hypnotics to an increased risk of cancers. The results should be cautiously interpreted because of considerable heterogeneity with a high I square value.
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.