ReviewArchives of medical science : AMS2023
Preventive effects of 13 different drugs on colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Global, regional, national burden of colorectal cancer from 1990 to 2021, with projections of incidence to 2050: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Introducing Allopurinol to the Medical Treatment of Marfan Syndrome: Advantages, Limitations, and Potential Extension to other Aortopathies.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Review
- Facts and myths about the use and effects of statins in patients with dyslipidaemia: a survey of physicians.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- Atorvastatin as a pleiotropic anticancer agent: mechanisms, evidence, and therapeutic repurposing potential.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Mesalazine RegulatesPharmaceutics · 2025Article
- The incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections in different central venous access devices: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025Review
- Impact of gout on colorectal cancer and its survival: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- The SARIFA biomarker in the context of basic research of lipid-driven cancers.NPJ precision oncology · 2024Review
- Review of Network Meta-Analyses on the Efficacy of Chemopreventive Agents on Colorectal Adenomas and Cancer.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the study was to evaluate the preventive effect of 13 drugs on colorectal cancer (CRC) and guide the clinical application of these drugs. Material and methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. The Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale quality evaluation tool were used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs and cohort studies. The funnel plot was used to analyze publication bias. A network meta-analysis of the extracted data was conducted using Stata16.0 software. Results: A total of 57 studies (34 RCTs and 23 cohort studies) involving 82719 participants were included. The network meta-analysis revealed that the quality of the included studies was good; the funnel plot showed no obvious publication bias. The network meta-analysis showed that the preventive effect of 13 drugs on CRC was better than that of the placebo. Allopurinol (SUCRA: 97.2%) was found to have the best effect, followed by berberine (SUCRA: 89.9%), non-aspirin NSAIDs (SUCRA: 84.5%), statins (SUCRA: 66.5%), metformin (SUCRA: 66.3%), calcium (SUCRA: 48.9%), mesalazine (SUCRA: 44.5%), ursodeoxycholic acid (SUCRA: 42.6%), vitamin D (SUCRA: 41.4%), mercaptopurine (SUCRA: 39.4%), aspirin (SUCRA: 30.4%), folic acid (SUCRA: 24.9%), and eicosapentaenoic acid (SUCRA: 16.3%). Conclusions: The preventive effect of allopurinol on CRC was better than that of the other 13 drugs. These results can help doctors and patients understand the preventative effects of these drugs more intuitively and provide an evidence-based basis for the clinical application of these drugs.
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.