Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33494748›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2021

A systematic assessment of the association between frequently prescribed medicines and the risk of common cancers: a series of nested case-control studies.

R D McDowell, C Hughes, P Murchie, C Cardwell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R D McDowellCentre for Public Health, Queen's University, Grosvenor Rd., Belfast, Co. Antrim, BT12 6BA, UK.
C HughesSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University, Lisburn Rd, Belfast, Co. Antrim, BT9 7BL, UK.
P MurchieDivision of Applied Health Sciences Section, Section of Academic Primary Care, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB24 2ZD, UK.
C CardwellCentre for Public Health, Queen's University, Grosvenor Rd., Belfast, Co. Antrim, BT12 6BA, UK. c.cardwell@qub.ac.uk.
Queen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25535Cancer Research UK C37316/A25535
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies systematically screening medications have successfully identified prescription medicines associated with cancer risk. However, adjustment for confounding factors in these studies has been limited. We therefore investigated the association between frequently prescribed medicines and the risk of common cancers adjusting for a range of confounders.

methodsA series of nested case-control studies were undertaken using the Primary Care Clinical Informatics Unit Research (PCCIUR) database containing general practice (GP) records from Scotland. Cancer cases at 22 cancer sites, diagnosed between 1999 and 2011, were identified from GP records and matched with up to five controls (based on age, gender, GP practice and date of registration). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing any versus no prescriptions for each of the most commonly prescribed medicines, identified from prescription records, were calculated using conditional logistic regression, adjusting for comorbidities. Additional analyses adjusted for smoking use. An association was considered a signal based upon the magnitude of its adjusted OR, p-value and evidence of an exposure-response relationship. Supplementary analyses were undertaken comparing 6 or more prescriptions versus less than 6 for each medicine.

resultsOverall, 62,109 cases and 276,580 controls were included in the analyses and a total of 5622 medication-cancer associations were studied across the 22 cancer sites. After adjusting for comorbidities 2060 medicine-cancer associations for any prescription had adjusted ORs greater than 1.25 (or less than 0.8), 214 had a corresponding p-value less than or equal to 0.01 and 118 had evidence of an exposure-dose relationship hence meeting the criteria for a signal. Seventy-seven signals were identified after additionally adjusting for smoking. Based upon an exposure of 6 or more prescriptions, there were 118 signals after adjusting for comorbidities and 82 after additionally adjusting for smoking.

conclusionsIn this study a number of novel associations between medicine and cancer were identified which require further clinical and epidemiological investigation. The majority of medicines were not associated with an altered cancer risk and many identified signals reflected known associations between medicine and cancer.

Indexed as

AgedCase-Control StudiesComorbidityDrug PrescriptionsHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOdds RatioOutcome Assessment, Health CarePharmacoepidemiologyRisk FactorsScotlandCancer riskPharmacoepidemiologyScreening study

Identifiers

PMID33494748
PMCPMC7836181
OpenAlexW3115044001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.