ReviewBiology2026
Effects of Nutritional Supplementation on Tumor Growth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Using Animal Models of Mammary Cancer.
Review in Biology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer remains the most prevalent malignancy among women worldwide, and experimental tumor models are essential for evaluating new therapeutic approaches before clinical application. The Walker-256 carcinoma model exhibits biological behavior comparable to human carcinoma and allows short-term assessment of tumor progression. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of dietary supplementation on Walker-256 tumor growth. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases without time restrictions. The meta-analysis included clustering based on the type of supplementation received, comparing treatment groups with control groups. Twenty-one studies were included, analyzing 18 different supplements, and 12 studies were considered for quantitative synthesis. The overall effect indicated a significant reduction in tumor growth with supplementation (SMD = 2.83, 95% CI = 1.99-3.66,
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.