| 1. |
- Orsini, Nicola, et al.
(författare)
-
Meta-Analysis for Linear and Nonlinear Dose-Response Relations : Examples, an Evaluation of Approximations, and Software
- 2012
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Epidemiology. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC. - 0002-9262 .- 1476-6256. ; 175:1, s. 66-73
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Two methods for point and interval estimation of relative risk for log-linear exposure-response relations in meta-analyses of published ordinal categorical exposure-response data have been proposed. The authors compared the results of a meta-analysis of published data using each of the 2 methods with the results that would be obtained if the primary data were available and investigated the circumstances under which the approximations required for valid use of each meta-analytic method break down. They then extended the methods to handle nonlinear exposure-response relations. In the present article, methods are illustrated using studies of the relation between alcohol consumption and colorectal and lung cancer risks from the ongoing Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. In these examples, the differences between the results of a meta-analysis of summarized published data and the pooled analysis of the individual original data were small. However, incorrectly assuming no correlation between relative risk estimates for exposure categories from the same study gave biased confidence intervals for the trend and biased P values for the tests for nonlinearity and between-study heterogeneity when there was strong confounding by other model covariates. The authors illustrate the use of 2 publicly available user-friendly programs (Stata and SAS) to implement meta-analysis for dose-response data.
|
|
| 2. |
- Zhang, Xuehong, et al.
(författare)
-
Carotenoid intakes and risk of breast cancer defined by estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status : a pooled analysis of 18 prospective cohort studies
- 2012
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0002-9165 .- 1938-3207. ; 95:3, s. 713-725
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Epidemiologic studies examining associations between carotenoid intakes and risk of breast cancer by estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status are limited. Objective: We investigated these associations in a pooled analysis of 18 cohort studies. Design: Of 1,028,438 participants followed for a maximum follow-up of 26 y across studies, 33,380 incident invasive breast cancers were identified. Study-specific RRs and 95% CIs were estimated by using Cox proportional hazards regression and then pooled by using a random-effects model. Results: alpha-Carotene, beta-carotene, and lutein/zeaxanthin intakes were inversely associated with the risk of ER-negative (ER-) breast cancer (pooled multivariable RRs of the comparison between the highest and lowest quintiles): alpha-carotene (0.87; 95% CI: 0.78, 0.97), beta-carotene (0.84; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.93), and lutein/zeaxanthin (0.87; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.95). These variables were not inversely associated with the risk of ER-positive (ER+) breast cancer (pooled multivariable RRs for the same comparison): a-carotene (1.04; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.09), beta-carotene (1.04; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.10), and lutein/zeaxanthin (1.00; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.07). Although the pooled RRs for quintile 5 for beta-cryptoxanthin were not significant, inverse trends were observed for ER- and ER+ breast cancer (P-trend <= 0.05). Nonsignificant associations were observed for lycopene intake. The associations were largely not appreciably modified by several breast cancer risk factors. Nonsignificant associations were observed for PR-positive and PR-negative breast cancer. Conclusions: Intakes of alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, and lutein/zeaxanthin were inversely associated with risk of ER-, but not ER+, breast cancer. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution because it is unclear whether the observed association is real or due to other constituents in the same food sources. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:713-25.
|
|
