4.7 Review

Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum concentration and total cancer incidence and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 753-764

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.08.026

关键词

Vitamin D; Cancer; Incidence; Mortality; Meta-Analysis

资金

  1. CHANCES project
  2. FP7 framework program of DG-RESEARCH in the European Commission [242244]
  3. German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [Graduiertenkolleg 793]
  4. Klaus Tschira Foundation (Klaus Tschira Stiftung gemeinnutzige GmbH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on the association of 25(OH)D with total cancer incidence and mortality. Method. Relevant longitudinal observational studies were identified by systematically searching Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases. Due to the heterogeneity across studies in categorizing 25(OH)D concentration, all results were recalculated for an increase of 25(OH)D by 50 nmol/L. Results. In meta-analyses with random effects models, the summary risk ratios and confidence intervals (RRs (95% CI)) for the association of an increase of 25(OH)D by 50 nmol/L with total cancer incidence (5 studies) and mortality (13 studies) were 0.89 (0.81, 0.97) and 0.83 (0.71, 0.96), respectively. In sex-specific analyses no significant association with total cancer incidence was observed among men or women. A clear inverse association with total cancer mortality was observed among women (0.76 (0.60, 0.98)) but not among men (0.92 (0.65, 1.32)). Large heterogeneity was observed for studies on total cancer mortality (P < 0.01) but not for studies on cancer incidence (P = 0.41). No publication bias was found. Conclusion. The meta-analysis suggests a moderate inverse association of 25(OH)D concentration with total cancer incidence and mortality. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据