Cruciferous vegetable consumption and gastric cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies
Wu QJ, Yang Y, Wang J, Han LH, Xiang YB
Cancer science · 67 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Eventos clínicos como enfermedad o muerte
- Consumo medido con
- No se indica
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- National Mega Project on Major Infectious Disease Prevention
Según 1 financiador declarado.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2013-05-16 · Cancer Sci · vol. 104 · número 8 · págs. 1067–1073
- Editorial
- Wiley
- Citado
- 108 citas · más que el 98% de estudios similares · 9.0× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 61 trabajos
- Acceso
- Lectura gratuita
- Áreas de investigación
- Helicobacter pylori-related gastroenterology studies · Genomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress · Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
- Palabras clave
- Medicine, Meta-analysis, Cruciferous vegetables, Cancer, Publication bias, Confidence interval, Relative risk, Study heterogeneity, Internal medicine, Epidemiology, Prospective cohort study, Stomach cancer, Gastroenterology, Oncology
- MeSH
- humans, brassica, vegetables, stomach neoplasms, diet, risk, epidemiologic studies, case-control studies, prospective studies, female, male
5 autores
- Qi‐Jun Wu🇨🇳Renji Hospital; Shanghai Cancer Institute; State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes
- Yang Yang🇨🇳Renji Hospital; Shanghai Cancer Institute; State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes
- Jing Wang🇨🇳Renji Hospital; Shanghai Cancer Institute; State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes
- Li‐Hua Han🇨🇳Renji Hospital; Shanghai Cancer Institute; State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes
- Yong‐Bing Xiang🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaRenji Hospital; Shanghai Cancer Institute; State Key Laboratory of Oncogene and Related Genes
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
The relationship between consumption of cruciferous vegetables (CV) and risk of gastric cancer has been investigated by many studies, but remains controversial. We carried out a meta-analysis to summarize available evidence from epidemiological studies on this point. Relevant published reports of CV intake and gastric cancer were identified using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science databases through to the end of September 2012. We pooled the relative risk from individual studies using a fixed- or random-effects model and carried out heterogeneity and publication bias analyses. Sixteen case-control and six prospective studies were included in our analysis. When all studies were pooled, we yielded a significantly inverse association between CV (relative risk = 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.88) intake and gastric cancer risk, with little heterogeneity (Q = 27.27, P = 0.292, I(2) = 12.0%). Specific analysis for cabbage intake yielded similar result. When separately analyzed, case-control studies of CV intake yielded significant results and the results of prospective studies showed borderline statistical significance. Moreover, significant results were consistent for high-quality studies, for North American, European, and Asian studies, for studies on males, and for studies on non-cardia gastric cancer. Findings from this meta-analysis provide evidence that high intake of CV was inversely associated with the risk of gastric cancer and non-cardia gastric cancer in humans. Further studies on other specific CV, food preparation methods, and stratified results by anatomic cancer site and histological type should be extended in the future.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.