ArticleHeliyon2024
Body fat percentage vs body mass index in estimating basal cell carcinoma.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of body mass index (BMI) in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) risk remains controversial, and limited information is available regarding the relationship between other physical measurements and BCC. Several recent studies have found a positive effect of adiposity on improved survival when obesity was determined solely by BMI (the "obesity paradox"). We hypothesize that body fat percentage (BFP) may serve as a more sensitive risk factor for BCC than BMI. Methods: The study conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from two distinct centers in China. Individual patient-level data were obtained from medical record reviews spanning January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2022. Associations with outcomes were analyzed using univariate and stratified analyses and assessed using multiple logistic regression with adjustment for confounding factors. Additionally, we performed a meta-analysis to further test the observations in our study. Results: A total of 337 patients, ranging in age from 50 to 91 years, with a mean age of 66.88 (standard deviation 10.16), were included. We observed no significant association between BMI and BCC after adjusting for confounders (OR: 0.71, 95 % CI: 0.36-1.40, Conclusions: Our study supports the hypothesis that BFP is superior to BMI in assessing BCC risk. Multiple logistic regression analyses, coupled with meta-analysis, provided robust evidence that BFP is a sensitive risk factor for BCC, while BMI appears unrelated to risk. According to these findings, routine healthcare practices could benefit from utilizing BFP measurements. The reduction of body fat percentage in low-fat diets may be beneficial for adjuvant treatment of BCC.
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.