ArticleAnnals of global health2020
Folic Acid Supplement Intake and Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Women; A Case Control Study.
Article in Annals of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Family history of cancer as a potential risk factor for colorectal cancer in EMRO countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Association between smoking and colorectal cancer in Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (EMRO): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationPooled it
- Folate-Functionalized Albumin-Containing Systems: Non-Covalent vs. Covalent Binding of Folic Acid.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- The relationship between folic acid and colorectal cancer; a literature review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An ongoing controversy exists on the role of folic acid supplementation in colorectal cancer risk among epidemiological studies. Objective: To assess the association between maternal folic acid supplementation and colorectal cancer risk. Methods: A paired matched case control study of 405 subjects was performed, including women residing in 135 villages of East Azerbaijan, Iran. Per area, subjects were followed regularly in local healthcare centers, where health- and social-related information have been collected prospectively in face to face interviews by well-trained health workers. We extracted folic acid supplement intake, baseline characteristics, and confounders from healthcare records. The data for study participants were linked to national cancer registry repositories, from which we retrieved the data of 135 women diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 2005 to 2015. Two hundred seventy controls were individually matched with cases in terms of residing village, age, and gender. We applied multivariate conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Findings: There was no significant association between folic acid supplementation and colorectal cancer risk in those with history of folic acid intake compared to those with no history of intake (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.53), in those with less than five years of folic acid (0.79; 0.45 to 1.39) or in those with ≥5 years intake (1.09; 0.52 to 2.26). This risk did not change after adjustment for covariates or further stratification. Conclusions: Maternal folic acid supplementation did not affect colorectal cancer risk in a population where supplemental folic acid is prescribed with regular intervals for women of child-bearing age.
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.