SynthesisCancer medicine2020
Non-genetic biomarkers and colorectal cancer risk: Umbrella review and evidence triangulation.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias in Mendelian randomization studies: a systematic review.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Systematic review of Mendelian randomization studies on risk of cancer.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Non-genetic biomarkers and colorectal cancer risk: Umbrella review and evidence triangulation.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and survival outcomes of colorectal cancer: evidence from population-based prospective cohorts and Mendelian randomisation.British journal of cancer · 2024Article
- Evaluation of human papillomavirus DNA in colorectal cancer and adjacent mucosal tissue samples.Infectious agents and cancer · 2023Article
- Validity of observational evidence on putative risk and protective factors: appraisal of 3744 meta-analyses on 57 topics.BMC medicine · 2021Article
- Advances in COVID-19 research until November 2020: Update from the UNCOVER registry.Journal of global health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Several associations between non-genetic biomarkers and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk have been detected, but the strength of evidence and the direction of associations are not confirmed. We aimed to evaluate the evidence of these associations and integrate results from different approaches to assess causal inference. We searched Medline and Embase for meta-analyses of observational studies, meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and Mendelian randomization (MR) studies measuring the associations between non-genetic biomarkers and CRC risk and meta-analyses of RCTs on supplementary micronutrients. We repeated the meta-analyses using random-effects models and categorized the evidence based on predefined criteria. We described each MR study and evaluated their credibility. Seventy-two meta-analyses of observational studies and 18 MR studies on non-genetic biomarkers and six meta-analyses of RCTs on micronutrient intake and CRC risk considering 65, 42, and five unique associations, respectively, were identified. No meta-analyses of RCTs on blood level biomarkers have been found. None of the associations were classified as convincing or highly suggestive, three were classified as suggestive, and 26 were classified as weak. For three biomarkers explored in MR studies, there was evidence of causality and seven were classified as likely noncausal. For the first time, results from both observational and MR studies were integrated by triangulating the evidence for a wide variety of non-genetic biomarkers and CRC risk. At blood level, lower vitamin D, higher homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance, and human papillomavirus infection were associated with higher CRC risk while increased linoleic acid and oleic acid and decreased arachidonic acid were likely causally associated with lower CRC risk. No association was found convincing in both study types.
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.