荟萃分析
医学
观察研究
子宫内膜癌
2型糖尿病
内科学
癌症
胆囊癌
结直肠癌
乳腺癌
系统回顾
肿瘤科
糖尿病
梅德林
内分泌学
生物
生物化学
作者
Konstantinos K. Tsilidis,John C. Kasimis,David S. López,Evangelia Ntzani,John P. A. Ioannidis
摘要
Objectives To summarise the evidence and evaluate the validity of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. Design An umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of observational studies of type 2 diabetes with risk of developing or dying from any cancer. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and manual screening of references. Eligibility criteria Meta-analyses or systematic reviews of observational studies in humans that examined the association between type 2 diabetes and risk of developing or dying from cancer. Results Eligible meta-analyses assessed associations between type 2 diabetes and risk of developing cancer in 20 sites and mortality for seven cancer sites. The summary random effects estimates were significant at P=0.05 in 20 meta-analyses (74%); and all reported increased risks of developing cancer for participants with versus without diabetes. Of the 27 meta-analyses, eventually only seven (26%) compiled evidence on more than 1000 cases, had significant summary associations at P≤0.001 for both random and fixed effects calculations, and had neither evidence of small study effects nor evidence for excess significance. Of those, only six (22%) did not have substantial heterogeneity (I2>75%), pertaining to associations between type 2 diabetes and risk of developing breast, cholangiocarcinoma (both intrahepatic and extrahepatic), colorectal, endometrial, and gallbladder cancer. The 95% prediction intervals excluded the null value for four of these associations (breast, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal, and endometrial cancer). Conclusions Though type 2 diabetes has been extensively studied in relation to risk of developing cancer and cancer mortality and strong claims of significance exist for most of the studied associations, only a minority of these associations have robust supporting evidence without hints of bias.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI