Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30887752›Full record

SynthesisJournal of gynecologic oncology2019

Dietary inflammatory index and risk of gynecological cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Ze Ying Liu, Xu Ping Gao, Sui Zhu, Yan Hua Liu, Li Jun Wang, Chun Xia Jing, Fang Fang Zeng

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ze Ying Liu *Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6197-2303
Xu Ping Gao *Department of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3813-2036
Sui ZhuDepartment of Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Yan Hua LiuDepartment of Nutrition, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9213-226X
Li Jun WangDepartment of Nutrition, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5419-7054
Chun Xia JingDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7333-4181
Fang Fang ZengDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China. zengffjnu@126.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8650-0927
Jinan University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81602853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere has been growing body of literatures showing that chronic inflammation might play an important role in cancer development. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the association between the dietary inflammation index (DII) score and gynecological cancers.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science up until October 20, 2018 was carried out to retrieve all related cohort and case-control studies. The summary risk assessments were pooled using random-effects models. The dose-response relationship was estimated by linear relationship model.

resultsTwelve case-control studies (10,774 cases/15,958 controls) and six prospective cohort studies (330,363 participants/23,133 incident cases) were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) of gynecological cancers for the highest DII category compared to the lowest category was 1.38, (95% confidence intervals [CIs], 1.21-1.56, p<0.001]. A positive dose-response relationship was also noticed. Stratified by study design indicated that, the pooled RRs was significantly higher for case-control studies than cohort studies (p for interaction<0.001), for studies conducted among participants with body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m² than participants with BMI <25 kg/m² (p for interaction=0.026), among participants with ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer than participants with breast cancer (p for interaction = 0.038). Meta-regression analysis further confirmed that study design significantly contributed to inter-study heterogeneity (p<0.001).

conclusionThis meta-analysis suggests that elevated DII is independently associated with a higher risk of gynecological cancers, especially patients with ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer and among obese participants.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesChinaChronic DiseaseCohort StudiesDietFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHealth Status IndicatorsHumansInflammationObservational Studies as TopicRisk FactorsDietary Inflammatory IndexEpidemiologic studiesGynecologic NeoplasmsMeta-Analysis

Identifiers

PMID30887752
PMCPMC6424848
OpenAlexW2902950838

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.