Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33376163›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Diabetes mellitus and the risk of ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

Lihai Wang, Lei Zhong, Bin Xu, Min Chen, Hongxiao Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Prospective Analysis of Circulating Biomarkers and Ovarian Cancer Risk in the UK Biobank.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Global epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lihai WangObstetrics and Gynecology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital, HuZhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0310-8143
Lei ZhongIntensive Care Unit, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital, HuZhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Bin XuObstetrics and Gynecology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital, HuZhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Min ChenObstetrics and Gynecology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital, HuZhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Hongxiao HuangObstetrics and Gynecology, Huzhou Central Hospital, Affiliated Central Hospital, HuZhou University, Huzhou, Zhejiang, China perfectog@163.com.
Huzhou Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEmerging evidence from observational studies (cohort and case-control studies) suggests that a history of diabetes mellitus (DM) has been linked to increased risk of ovarian cancer (OC), but the association between them remains inconclusive. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was to clarify this association.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases published from the inception through 9 April 2020 without language restriction. Observational studies that evaluated the correlation between DM and the incidence of OC were included in our study. Relative risk (RR) with 95% CI was pooled by use of a random-effects model.

resultsA total of 36 epidemiological articles, including 9 case-control and 27 cohort studies, were finally enrolled, consisting of 14 496 incident cases of OC. Synthesised RRs of developing OC by history of DM were 1.20 (95% CI=1.10 to 1.31) for all eligible studies, 1.08 (95% CI=0.77 to 1.53) for case-control studies and 1.22 (95% CI=1.11 to 1.33) for cohort studies. The above-mentioned positive association persisted across most of subgroup analyses, whereas it was not significant among studies from North American and European countries, level of unadjusted, and patients with low-quality and gestational DM group. The cumulative meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis showed pooled effect was stable and reliable, and no apparent publication bias was identified in this study.

conclusionsOur study found weaker but still association between DM and OC risk. However, further well-designed prospective studies that control for potential confounders are warranted.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusOvarian NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesDiabetes ComplicationsEuropeFemaleHumansProspective StudiesRisk Factorsadult oncologydiabetes & endocrinologygynaecological oncology

Identifiers

PMID33376163
PMCPMC7778773
OpenAlexW3113988521

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.