SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2019
An overview on the methodological and reporting quality of dose-response meta-analysis on cancer prevention.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The association between body mass index and the risk of different urinary cancers: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) has been widely used in exploring cancer risk factors. Understanding the quality of published DRMAs on cancer risk factors may be beneficial for informed prevention for cancer.
methodsWe searched eligible DRMAs from 1st January 2011 to 31st-July-2017. The modified AMSTAR 1.0 (15 items) and PRISMA checklist (26 items) were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of included DRMAs. We compared the adherence rate of these items by journal type, publication years, region, and funding information, in prior.
resultsWe included 260 DRMAs. Colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung were the four most commonly investigated cancers. For methodological quality, 6 out of 15 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 2 by less than 60%, only 7 of which by 80% or more. For reporting quality, 3 out of 26 items were adhered by less than 30% of the DRMAs, 1 by less than 80% (> 30%), and 20 of which by 80% or more. Those published in general journal, published more recently, and received any financial support have better methodological (Rate differences, RDs = 10-36%; P < 0.05) and reporting adherence (RDs = 12-36%; P < 0.05). DRMAs by Asian author tend to be less qualified than by European and American.
conclusionsThe methodological quality of DRMAs on cancer risk factors is worrisome that the findings of them may be deflective; more efforts are needed to improve the validity of it.
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.