SynthesisPloS one2022

Association of cognitive function with increased risk of cancer death and all-cause mortality: Longitudinal analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies.

Somayeh Rostamian, Saskia le Cessie, Koen A Marijt, J Wouter Jukema, Simon P Mooijaart, Mark A van Buchem, Thorbald van Hall, Jacobijn Gussekloo, Stella Trompet

Open access · goldFull text readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map, but none could be read as for or against, so it casts no vote. Cited by 9 papers.

1number the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

Read, but not usablea number the graph found but could not read as for or against

Adverse events & safetycomparator not stated · ascvd, dyslipidemiafeeds one cell of the map
HR 0.790.36 to 1.70
Results of the Leiden-85 Plus Study showed that subjects with MMSE score below 24 had a lower chance of cancer death (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.36-1.70, P for trend = 0.820) but had 2.18-fold (95%CI 1.57-3.02) higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to the reference group (P for trend<0.001).

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

Statins×adverse events & safety

No readable resultOpen on the map →What to test next →

11 readable studies in this cell: 3 favour the treatment, 7 find no difference, 1 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.16contested · 1 family supports, 4 contradict · against placebo
Without itNot a counted family in this claim, so removing it changes nothing.
← favours the comparatorfavours the treatment →
0 · no effect
NCT002899002,340 enrolled · 2006
Δ 13.79.40 to 18.0
NCT01294683977 enrolled · 2011
Δ -1.03-7.30 to 5.25
NCT00728988499 enrolled · 2008
Δ 1.00-7.30 to 9.30
NCT01678820299 enrolled · 2012
Δ -0.40-10.2 to 9.30

This paper's own estimate is on a different scale from the rest of the cell, so it is not drawn here.

4 · 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.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
6 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Somayeh RostamianDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Saskia le CessieDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koen A MarijtDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J Wouter JukemaDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Simon P MooijaartDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mark A van BuchemDepartment of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Thorbald van HallDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jacobijn GusseklooDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Stella TrompetDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5006-0528
Leiden University · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

backgroundDisturbed cognitive function is associated with several causes of mortality; however, the association between cognitive function and the risk of cancer death has not been extensively investigated yet. We aimed to evaluate the association of cognitive function with the risk of cancer death and all-cause mortality in the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER) and Leiden 85-plus Study. Additionally, a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies were conducted to evaluate the association of cognitive function and risk of cancer death.

methodsRisk of cancer death and all-cause mortality were reported using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in tertiles of cognitive function of PROSPER and Leiden85-Plus Study. Additionally, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, CINHAL, and Emcare were searched up to November 1st, 2020 to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis. The relative risks (RRs) with 95%CI of cancer death per each standard deviation lower performance in cognitive measurements were calculated.

resultsParticipants of PROSPER had 1.65-fold (95%CI 1.11-2.47) greater risk of cancer death (P for trend = 0.016) and 1.85-fold (95%CI 1.46-2.34) higher risk of all-cause mortality (P for trend<0.001), in multivariable models. Results of the Leiden-85 Plus Study showed that subjects with MMSE score below 24 had a lower chance of cancer death (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.36-1.70, P for trend = 0.820) but had 2.18-fold (95%CI 1.57-3.02) higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to the reference group (P for trend<0.001). Besides, the results of systematic review and meta-analysis showed that per each standard deviation lower performance in cognitive function, individuals were at a 10% higher chance of cancer death (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.20, P-value = 0.044).

conclusionsLower cognitive function performance is associated with a marginally increased risk of cancer death, in line with a significantly greater risk of all-cause mortality.

Indexed as

CognitionAgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular DiseasesCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasmsPravastatinProspective StudiesPravastatin

Identifiers

PMID34995287
PMCPMC8741047
OpenAlexW4205847838

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
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.