Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39399427›Full record

SynthesisPeerJ2024

Passive smoking and risk of pancreatic cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xudong Wang, Zihan Wang, Xujie Wang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Xudong WangMinimally Invasive Interventional Therapy Center, Qingdao Hospital University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (Qingdao Municipal Hospital), Qingdao, China.
Zihan WangDepartment of Ultrasound, Qingdao Hospital University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (Qingdao Municipal Hospital), Qingdao, China.
Xujie WangMinimally Invasive Interventional Therapy Center, Qingdao Hospital University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (Qingdao Municipal Hospital), Qingdao, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Previous meta-analysis has demonstrated that no association was validated between passive smoking and pancreatic cancer. However, there is growing evidence on this issue recently. This study aimed to confirm this association. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 2024 for retrieval of full articles. Studies with the exposure of passive smoking and outcome of pancreatic cancer were eligible for the analysis. We generated pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. Results: Fourteen studies were included, with 5,560 pancreatic cancer patients. Passive smoking was associated with a moderate increased risk of pancreatic cancer (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.11-1.30, Conclusion: Passive smoking exposure confers a significant increased risk for pancreatic cancer. The risk was valid in both case-control and cohort, high and moderate quality studies, in current and non-current smokers, and for both childhood and adulthood exposure. Regular or daily exposure rather than exposing occasionally, seldom or few times per week could exert a detrimental effect on pancreatic cancer.

Indexed as

Pancreatic NeoplasmsTobacco Smoke PollutionHumansRisk FactorsTobacco Smoke PollutionMeta-analysisPancreatic cancerPassive smokingSystemic review

Identifiers

PMID39399427
PMCPMC11468807

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.