Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33724299›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Higher Mushroom Consumption Is Associated with Lower Risk of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Djibril M Ba, Paddy Ssentongo, Robert B Beelman, Joshua Muscat, Xiang Gao, John P Richie

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Role of Fruit-Derived Antioxidants in Fighting Cancer: A Narrative Review.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Djibril M BaDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5598-636X
Paddy SsentongoDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Robert B BeelmanCenter for Plant and Mushroom Foods for Health, Department of Food Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Joshua MuscatDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.
Xiang GaoDepartment of Nutritional Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2617-6509
John P RichieDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mushrooms are rich in bioactive compounds. The potential health benefits associated with mushroom intake have gained recent research attention. We thus conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between mushroom intake and risk of cancer at any site. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies on mushroom intake and cancer published from 1 January, 1966, up to 31 October, 2020. Observational studies (n = 17) with RRs, HRs, or ORs and 95% CIs of cancer risk for ≥2 categories of mushroom intake were eligible for the present study. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Higher mushroom consumption was associated with lower risk of total cancer (pooled RR for the highest compared with the lowest consumption groups: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.78; n = 17). Higher mushroom consumption was also associated with lower risk of breast cancer (pooled RR for the highest compared with the lowest consumption groups: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.81; n = 10) and nonbreast cancer (pooled RR for the highest compared with the lowest consumption groups: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.97; n = 13). When site-specific cancers were examined, a significant association with mushroom consumption was only observed with breast cancer; this could be due to the small number of studies that were conducted with other cancers. There was evidence of a significant nonlinear dose-response association between mushroom consumption and the risk of total cancer (P-nonlinearity = 0.001; n = 7). Limitations included the potential for recall and selection bias in case-control designs, which comprised 11 out of the 17 studies included in this meta-analysis, and the large variation in the adjustment factors used in the final models from each study. The association between higher mushroom consumption and lower risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer, may indicate a potential protective role for mushrooms in the diet.

Indexed as

AgaricalesBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesDietFemaleHumansRiskRisk Factorscancer riskdietdose-responseepidemiologymushroomobservational studies

Identifiers

PMID33724299
PMCPMC8483951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.