Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review
Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review
复制标题
DOI：
10.3945/ajcn.112.047142
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Ioannidis, John P. A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schoenfeld, Jonathan D.;Ioannidis, John P. A.
背景：营养流行病学是一个非常多产的领域。关于营养物质与疾病风险之间关系的争论在文献中很常见，也引起了公众媒体的关注。目的：我们旨在检验特定食物与癌症风险之间关联的文献结论、统计意义和可重复性。设计：我们从一本食谱中随机挑选了50种常见的食材。PubMed的查询发现了最近的研究，评估了每种成分与癌症风险的关系。提取了有关作者结论和相关效应估计的信息。当bbbb10篇文章被发现时，我们关注的是最近的10篇文章。结果：40种成分（80%）有文章报道其致癌风险。在264项单项研究评估中，有191项（72%）得出结论，受测食品与风险增加（n = 103）或降低（n = 88）有关；75%的风险估计值较弱（0.05 > P >= 0.001）或无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。统计上显著的结果比不显著的结果更有可能在研究摘要中发表，而不是仅在全文中发表（P < 0.0001）。meta分析（n = 36）的结果更为保守；只有13例（26%）报告了增加（n = 4）或减少（n = 9）的风险（6例有弱统计支持）。得出风险增加或降低的研究的中位风险比（IQRs）分别为2.20（1.60,3.44）和0.52（0.39,0.66）。meta分析的rr平均为零（中位数：0.96;IQR: 0.85, 1.10）。结论：大多数食品成分都声称与癌症风险或益处有关。许多单独的研究强调了令人难以置信的巨大影响，尽管证据不足。在荟萃分析中，效应大小缩小。[J]中华临床医学杂志，2013;37(1):1 - 4。
Background: Nutritional epidemiology is a highly prolific field. Debates on associations of nutrients with disease risk are common in the literature and attract attention in public media.Objective: We aimed to examine the conclusions, statistical significance, and reproducibility in the literature on associations between specific foods and cancer risk.Design: We selected 50 common ingredients from random recipes in a cookbook. PubMed queries identified recent studies that evaluated the relation of each ingredient to cancer risk. Information regarding author conclusions and relevant effect estimates were extracted. When >10 articles were found, we focused on the 10 most recent articles.Results: Forty ingredients (80%) had articles reporting on their cancer risk. Of 264 single-study assessments, 191 (72%) concluded that the tested food was associated with an increased (n = 103) or a decreased (n = 88) risk; 75% of the risk estimates had weak (0.05 > P >= 0.001) or no statistical (P > 0.05) significance. Statistically significant results were more likely than nonsignificant findings to be published in the study abstract than in only the full text (P < 0.0001). Meta-analyses (n = 36) presented more conservative results; only 13 (26%) reported an increased (n = 4) or a decreased (n = 9) risk (6 had more than weak statistical support). The median RRs (IQRs) for studies that concluded an increased or a decreased risk were 2.20 (1.60, 3.44) and 0.52 (0.39, 0.66), respectively. The RRs from the meta-analyses were on average null (median: 0.96; IQR: 0.85, 1.10).Conclusions: Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses. Am J Clin Nutr 2013;97:127-34.