Trial reportBritish journal of cancer1995
The effect of calcium supplements on rectal mucosal proliferation.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
- Trial
- Dairy products and colorectal cancer. A review of possible mechanisms and epidemiological evidence.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2003Review
- Dietary calcium supplementation increases apoptosis in the distal murine colonic epithelium.Journal of clinical pathology · 2000Article
- Colon cancer: polyps, prevention, and politics.Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 1998Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seventy-nine patients with colorectal adenomata were randomised to receive calcium carbonate (3,000 mg) or placebo in a double-blind randomised trial to assess the short- and long-term effects on rectal mucosal proliferation measured by the in vitro metaphase arrest technique crypt cell production rate (CCPR). There was no significant difference in mean CCPR between the groups before treatment or after 3 or 12 months. In those patients randomised to calcium, CCPR fell at both 3 months [9.0 (2.8) cc c-1 h-1, t = 3.15, d.f = 76, P = 0.002] and 12 months [9.2 (3.3) cc c-1 h-1 t = 2.7, d.f. = 74, P = 0.009] compared with pretreatment CCPR [12.2 (5.5) cc c-1 h-1]. We have demonstrated that calcium had no effect on mucosal proliferation compared with placebo. The results on adenoma formation are awaited.
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.