Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30212943›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2018

Association between dietary carrot intake and breast cancer: A meta-analysis.

Haichao Chen, Faming Shao, Fei Zhang, Qilong Miao

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Root Vegetables-Composition, Health Effects, and Contaminants.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Bioactive CMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Haichao ChenDepartment of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Faming Shao
Fei Zhang
Qilong Miao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to estimate the association between dietary carrot intake and risk of breast cancer by conducting a meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.

methodsRelevant studies were identified by searching databases through September 2017. We included studies that reported risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals for the association between dietary carrot intake and breast cancer risk. Random-effects models were used to calculate the summary risk estimates. Publication bias was estimated using Begg's funnel plot and Egger's regression asymmetry test.

resultsA total of 10 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis involving 13,747 cases. The combined odds ratios (ORs) of breast cancer for the highest compared with the lowest dietary carrot intake was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.90), and a significant heterogeneity was observed. In the subgroup analyses separated by study design, the inverse associations were more pronounced in the case-control studies than in the cohort studies, while the associations did not significantly differ by geographical region, study quality, exposure assessment. Omission of any single study had little effect on the combined risk estimate.

conclusionThe overall current literatures suggested that dietary carrot intake was associated with decreased risk of breast cancer.

Indexed as

Daucus carotaBreast NeoplasmsEpidemiologic StudiesHumansOdds RatioRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID30212943
PMCPMC6156046

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.