了解癌症流行病学中的荟萃分析:膳食脂肪与乳腺癌。

R A Harrison, J W Waterbor
{"title":"了解癌症流行病学中的荟萃分析:膳食脂肪与乳腺癌。","authors":"R A Harrison,&nbsp;J W Waterbor","doi":"10.1046/j.1525-1500.1999.09916.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-analyses of the relationship between dietary fat and breast cancer risk using different methodologies have reported conflicting results. This investigation compares methodologic aspects of meta-analyses of patient data (MAP) with meta-analyses of data from the literature (MAL), and computes relative risk (RR) estimates from a random effects model using 28 published studies of dietary fat and breast cancer. MAP and MAL results compare closely when homogeneity is verified. When statistical homogeneity is rejected, a random effects model adjusting for study design and location is appropriate. The highest RR was found for case-control studies of European women (RR: 1.46), followed by North American case-control studies (RR: 1.25), case-control studies of women on other continents (RR: 1.23), cohort studies in Europe (RR: 1.20), and cohort studies in North America (RR: 1.02). The overall risk estimate in a MAL with heterogeneous studies should be interpreted only in a conditional model.</p>","PeriodicalId":9499,"journal":{"name":"Cancer detection and prevention","volume":"23 2","pages":"97-106"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding meta-analysis in cancer epidemiology: dietary fat and breast cancer.\",\"authors\":\"R A Harrison,&nbsp;J W Waterbor\",\"doi\":\"10.1046/j.1525-1500.1999.09916.x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Meta-analyses of the relationship between dietary fat and breast cancer risk using different methodologies have reported conflicting results. This investigation compares methodologic aspects of meta-analyses of patient data (MAP) with meta-analyses of data from the literature (MAL), and computes relative risk (RR) estimates from a random effects model using 28 published studies of dietary fat and breast cancer. MAP and MAL results compare closely when homogeneity is verified. When statistical homogeneity is rejected, a random effects model adjusting for study design and location is appropriate. The highest RR was found for case-control studies of European women (RR: 1.46), followed by North American case-control studies (RR: 1.25), case-control studies of women on other continents (RR: 1.23), cohort studies in Europe (RR: 1.20), and cohort studies in North America (RR: 1.02). The overall risk estimate in a MAL with heterogeneous studies should be interpreted only in a conditional model.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9499,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer detection and prevention\",\"volume\":\"23 2\",\"pages\":\"97-106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer detection and prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1500.1999.09916.x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer detection and prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1500.1999.09916.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

使用不同方法对膳食脂肪和乳腺癌风险之间关系进行的荟萃分析报告了相互矛盾的结果。本研究比较了患者数据荟萃分析(MAP)和文献数据荟萃分析(MAL)的方法学方面,并利用28项已发表的关于膳食脂肪和乳腺癌的研究,计算了随机效应模型的相对风险(RR)估计值。在验证均匀性时,MAP和MAL结果比较接近。当统计同质性被拒绝,随机效应模型调整研究设计和位置是合适的。RR最高的是欧洲女性病例对照研究(RR: 1.46),其次是北美病例对照研究(RR: 1.25)、其他大陆女性病例对照研究(RR: 1.23)、欧洲队列研究(RR: 1.20)和北美队列研究(RR: 1.02)。异质性研究中MAL的总体风险估计只能用条件模型来解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Understanding meta-analysis in cancer epidemiology: dietary fat and breast cancer.

Meta-analyses of the relationship between dietary fat and breast cancer risk using different methodologies have reported conflicting results. This investigation compares methodologic aspects of meta-analyses of patient data (MAP) with meta-analyses of data from the literature (MAL), and computes relative risk (RR) estimates from a random effects model using 28 published studies of dietary fat and breast cancer. MAP and MAL results compare closely when homogeneity is verified. When statistical homogeneity is rejected, a random effects model adjusting for study design and location is appropriate. The highest RR was found for case-control studies of European women (RR: 1.46), followed by North American case-control studies (RR: 1.25), case-control studies of women on other continents (RR: 1.23), cohort studies in Europe (RR: 1.20), and cohort studies in North America (RR: 1.02). The overall risk estimate in a MAL with heterogeneous studies should be interpreted only in a conditional model.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信