Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41784894›Full record

SynthesisCancer causes & control : CCC2026

Body mass index (BMI) and risk of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using directly measured and genetically proxied measures of BMI.

Rajat Das Gupta, Anwar Merchant, Karen Kane McDonnell, Maxwell Akonde, Longgang Zhao, Jiajia Zhang, Anthony J Alberg

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Rajat Das GuptaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. rajat.d.gupta@vumc.org.
Anwar MerchantDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Karen Kane McDonnellCollege of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Maxwell AkondeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Longgang ZhaoYale School of Nursing, Yale University, Orange, CT, USA.
Jiajia ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Anthony J AlbergDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany studies using measured Body Mass Index (BMI) report an inverse association with lung cancer, but a few recent Mendelian randomization (MR) studies using genetically proxied BMI suggest a possible risk association. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate and synthesize evidence on the association between lung cancer risk and both directly measured (i.e., clinically measured or self-reported) and genetically proxied BMI.

methodsWe systematically searched four bibliographic databases to identify prospective studies that examined the relationship between BMI and lung cancer. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool relative risks (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs). Dose-response trends were assessed.

resultsA total of 46 studies met inclusion criteria (41 directly measured BMI, three genetically proxied BMI, two with both measures). In studies that used directly measured BMI (n = 43), compared with normal weight, lung cancer risk was higher in the underweight category (RR: 1.43; 95% CI 1.25-1.64) and lower in the overweight/obese category (RR: 0.79; 95% CI 0.74-0.83). Each 1 kg/m

conclusionA large body of consistent evidence from studies that directly measured BMI provides strong evidence of an inverse association between BMI and lung cancer risk. This evidence meets some of the key epidemiologic causal criteria such as temporality, strength of the association (including dose-response), and consistency of the association, but without a mechanism does not meet the criterion of biologic plausibility and thus causality is not established. A small body of MR evidence yielded non-significant findings that trended toward a risk association, indicating additional MR studies are warranted to clarify this issue.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexLung NeoplasmsHumansMendelian Randomization AnalysisObesityRisk FactorsBody mass indexLung neoplasmsObesityOverweight

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.