ArticleFood & nutrition research2025
Dietary fiber consumption and outcomes of different cancers: an umbrella review.
Article in Food & nutrition research, 2025. 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The association between dietary fiber intake and risk of lung cancer: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and dose response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.Nutrition journal · 2026Pooled it
- Intersection of Precision Nutrition and Bladder Cancer: A Narrative State-of-the-Art Review of Potential Applications and Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Common Risk Factors in Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Narrative Review.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The relationship between dietary fiber intake and cancer outcomes, including incidence, recurrence, and mortality, is crucial for understanding cancer prevention strategies. Methods: An umbrella review was conducted, analyzing existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This included data from 26 meta-analyses based on 2,107 unique articles, covering 52 observational study outcomes. The quality of the studies was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Results: High fiber intake significantly lowers the risk of cancers affecting the digestive, reproductive, and urinary systems, including esophageal adenoma, squamous cell carcinoma, gastric, pancreatic, colon, rectal, colorectal adenoma, breast, ovarian, endometrial, prostate, renal cell, and bladder cancers. Findings estimated that the risk of Colon cancer between total dietary fiber (TDF) was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.82), and the risk of Colorectal cancer between TDF was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.94). TDF was also found to be protective against Barrett's esophagus and esophagus cancer, esophageal adenomas, and esophagus squamous cell carcinoma, with effect sizes of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.43-0.64), 0.50 (95% CI: 0.37-0.67), and 0.53 (95% CI: 0.31-0.90), respectively. Conversely, increased intake of cereal fiber was associated with a higher incidence of renal cell carcinoma and endometrial cancer. Dose-response analyses revealed that increments of 2.5, 5, or 10 g per day in dietary fiber could lead to different levels of risk reduction for these cancers. Meta-regression suggested an optimal fiber intake range of 7-36 g per day for colon cancer prevention. However, the overall study quality was predominantly rated as 'very low'. Conclusions: Higher dietary fiber intake is linked to reduced cancer risk and improved outcomes. These findings highlight dietary fiber's importance in cancer prevention and care.
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.