ArticleCancer research and treatment2021
Adherence to the Recommended Intake of Calcium and Colorectal Cancer Risk in the HEXA Study.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dietary factors and colorectal cancer risk in Asian populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Pooled it
- Dietary intake and cancer incidence in Korean adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Epidemiology and health · 2023Pooled it
- Establish and validate a clinical predictive model for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- The burden of colorectal cancer attributable to dietary risk in Middle East and North African from 1990 to 2019.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Let food be thy medicine: the role of diet in colorectal cancer: a narrative review.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Review
- Anti-colorectal cancer effects of seaweed-derived bioactive compounds.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDietary calcium intake has been suggested to be protective against the development of colorectal cancer. The mean dietary calcium intake of Koreans is 490 mg/day, which is far below the recommended calcium intake of 700-800 mg/day. In this study, we explored the relationship between dietary calcium intake and colorectal cancer development in Koreans with relatively low calcium intake compared with individuals in Western countries. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe Health Examinees Study, a large-scale genomic community-based prospective cohort study, was designed to identify the general characteristics of major chronic diseases in Koreans. A total of 119,501 participants aged 40-69 years recruited between 2004 and 2013 were included in this analysis. The calcium intake level was categorized using the Dietary Reference Intakes for Koreans (KDRIs). The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for colorectal cancer risk, adjusting for potential confounders.
resultsIn the multivariable-adjusted model, compared with the group that consumed less than the recommended amount of calcium, the group that consumed more than the recommended intake of calcium showed a significant reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer in women. (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.95). Among men, however, no significant association was observed between dietary calcium intake and colorectal cancer risk (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.45).
conclusionKorean women who adhere to the recommended intake of calcium showed a reduced risk of colorectal cancer.
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.