Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29419756›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2018

Dietary Cholesterol Intake and Risk of Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Xiaojing Lin, Lingli Liu, Youyun Fu, Jing Gao, Yunyun He, Yang Wu, Xuemei Lian

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Anti-obesity peptides from food: Production, evaluation, sources, and commercialization.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Xiaojing LinSchool of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China. 2015111087@stu.cqmu.edu.cn.
Lingli LiuSchool of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China. 2015111098@stu.cqmu.edu.cn.
Youyun FuSchool of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China. 2016111039@stu.cqmu.edu.cn.
Jing GaoSchool of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China. 2016111060@stu.cqmu.edu.cn.
Yunyun HeSchool of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China. 2015111099@stu.cqmu.edu.cn.
Yang WuCollege of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 401147, China. yangwu@hospital.cqmu.edu.cn.
Xuemei LianSchool of Public Health and Management, Research Center for Medicine and Social Development, Innovation Center for Social Risk Governance in Health, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400016, China. xuemeilian@cqmu.edu.cn.
Chongqing Medical University · CNChongqing Public Health Medical Center · CNMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple epidemiologic studies have evaluated the relationship between dietary cholesterol and lung cancer risk, but the association is controversial and inconclusive. A meta-analysis of case-control studies and cohort studies was conducted to evaluate the relationship between dietary cholesterol intake and lung cancer risk in this study. A relevant literature search up to October 2017 was performed in Web of Science, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Sinomed, and VIP Journal Integration Platform. Ten case-control studies and six cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis, and the risk estimates were pooled using either fixed or random effects models. The case-control studies with a total of 6894 lung cancer cases and 29,736 controls showed that dietary cholesterol intake was positively associated with lung cancer risk (Odds Ratio = 1.70, 95% Confidence Interval: 1.43-2.03). However, there was no evidence of an association between dietary cholesterol intake and risk of lung cancer among the 241,920 participants and 1769 lung cancer cases in the cohort studies (Relative Risk = 1.08, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.94-1.25). Due to inconsistent results from case-control and cohort studies, it is difficult to draw any conclusion regarding the effects of dietary cholesterol intake on lung cancer risk. Carefully designed and well-conducted cohort studies are needed to identify the association between dietary cholesterol and lung cancer risk.

Indexed as

AnimalsCholesterol, DietaryDiet, Fat-RestrictedDiet, HealthyDiet, High-FatHumansLung NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRiskCholesterol, Dietarycase-control studycholesterol metabolismcohort studydietary cholesterollung cancermeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID29419756
PMCPMC5852761
OpenAlexW2792449718

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.