{"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, 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, 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}
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.