Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30174436›Full record

ArticleOncoTargets and therapy2018

The effects of beta-blocker use on cancer prognosis: a meta-analysis based on 319,006 patients.

Zhijing Na, Xinbo Qiao, Xuanyu Hao, Ling Fan, Yao Xiao, Yining Shao, Mingwei Sun, Ziyi Feng, Wen Guo, Jiapo Li and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in OncoTargets and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors.

Zhijing NaDepartment of Post-graduate, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110004, People's Republic of China.
Xinbo QiaoDepartment of Post-graduate, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110004, People's Republic of China.
Xuanyu HaoDepartment of Rheumatology and Immunology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110022, People's Republic of China.
Ling FanDepartment of Nursing, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110004, People's Republic of China.
Yao XiaoThe First Clinical Department of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110122, People's Republic of China.
Yining ShaoThe First Clinical Department of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110122, People's Republic of China.
Mingwei SunThe First Clinical Department of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110122, People's Republic of China.
Ziyi FengThe First Clinical Department of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110122, People's Republic of China.
Wen GuoThe First Clinical Department of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110122, People's Republic of China.
Jiapo LiDepartment of Post-graduate, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110004, People's Republic of China.
Jiatong LiDepartment of Undergraduate, The First Clinical Academy of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110001, People's Republic of China.
Dongyang LiDepartment of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110004, People's Republic of China, dyli@cmu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBeta-blockers are antihypertensive drugs and have shown potential in cancer prognosis. However, this benefit has not been well defined due to inconsistent results from the published studies.

methodsTo investigate the association between administration of beta-blocker and cancer prognosis, we performed a meta-analysis. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify all relevant studies published up to September 1, 2017. Thirty-six studies involving 319,006 patients were included. Hazard ratios were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratifying ethnicity, duration of drug use, cancer stage, sample size, beta-blocker type, chronological order of drug use, and different types of cancers.

resultsOverall, there was no evidence to suggest an association between beta-blocker use and overall survival (HR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.87-1.03), all-cause mortality (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.94-1.05), disease-free survival (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.30-1.17), progression-free survival (HR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.79-1.02), and recurrence-free survival (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.76-1.28), as well. In contrast, beta-blocker use was significantly associated with better cancer-specific survival (CSS) (HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95). Subgroup analysis generally supported main results. But there is still heterogeneity among cancer types that beta-blocker use is associated with improved survival among patients with ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, and melanoma.

conclusionThe present meta-analysis generally demonstrates no association between beta-blocker use and cancer prognosis except for CSS in all population groups examined. High-quality studies should be conducted to confirm this conclusion in future.

Indexed as

beta-blockercancermeta-analysisprognosis

Identifiers

PMID30174436
PMCPMC6109661

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.