ArticleScientific reports2024
Association between low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and prostate cancer risk in non-hypertensive middle-aged and older American men.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and prostate cancer risk: UK Biobank evidence.World journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Often linked with the risk of various diseases, blood low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are typically deemed more favorable when lower. The objective of this investigation is to elucidate the link between blood LDL-C levels and the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) in middle-aged and older men without hypertension in the United States. Utilizing continuous data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database spanning 2003-2010, a selection of 1,223 non-hypertensive men aged ≥ 40 years was made from a pool of 41,156 participants, ensuring no missing information. Regression analyses were employed to investigate the correlation between blood LDL-C levels and the PCa risk, while identifying potential inflection points indicative of threshold effects. Additionally, we scrutinized the linkage between cholesterol-lowering prescription drug usage and PCa. In our study of 2,224 participants, we found no significant correlation between blood LDL-C levels and the PCa risk after adjusting for confounding variables (Odds Ratio = 0.99; P-value > 0.05). However, upon conducting a subgroup analysis, we discovered a meaningful correlation between lower blood LDL-C levels and an increased PCa risk in the non-hypertensive population (Odds Ratio = 0.99; P-value < 0.05). Meanwhile, we identified a threshold effect and a tipping point at an LDL-C levels of 67 mg/dl. Furthermore, a significant correlation was identified between cholesterol-lowering prescription drug usage and a heightened PCa risk in the non-hypertensive population (Odds Ratio = 18.87; P-value < 0.05; P for interaction < 0.05). Our results indicate that in non-hypertensive middle-aged and older men residing in the United States, lower blood LDL-C levels are not necessarily better and the PCa risk escalates when blood LDL-C levels drop below 67 mg/dl, which may guide early screening and prognosis of PCa in specific populations. This finding calls for further validation via larger sample sizes and a more in-depth analysis of PCa history.
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.