Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35109847›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2022

The role of diet in renal cell carcinoma incidence: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies.

Zhanchen Liao, Zhitao Fang, Siqi Gou, Yong Luo, Yiqi Liu, Zhun He, Xin Li, Yansong Peng, Zheng Fu, Dongjin Li and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhanchen Liao *The Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Zhitao Fang *The Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Siqi GouThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Yong LuoThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Trauma Center & Critical Care Medicine, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Yiqi LiuThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Zhun HeThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Xin LiThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Yansong PengThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Zheng FuThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Dongjin LiThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Haiyun ChenThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China.
Zhigang LuoThe Second Affiliated Hospital, Institute of Urology and Organ Transplantation, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan, China. 1985020001@usc.edu.cn.
University of South China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence associating diet with the incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is inconclusive. We aimed to summarize evidence associating dietary factors with RCC incidence and assess the strength and validity of this evidence.

methodsWe conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews or meta-analyses (SRoMAs) that assessed the association between diet and RCC incidence. Through April 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and WCRF were searched. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and appraised the quality of SRoMAs. According to credibility assessment criteria, evidence can be divided into five categories: convincing (class I), highly suggestive (class II), suggestive (class III), weak (class IV), and nonsignificant (class V).

resultsTwenty-nine meta-analyses were obtained after screening. After excluding 7 overlapping meta-analyses, 22 meta-analyses including 502 individual studies and 64 summary hazard ratios for RCC incidence were included: dietary patterns or dietary quality indices (n = 6), foods (n = 13), beverages (n = 4), alcohol (n = 7), macronutrients (n =15), and micronutrients (n =19). No meta-analyses had high methodological quality. Five meta-analyses exhibited small study effects; one meta-analysis showed evidence of excess significance bias. No dietary factors showed convincing or highly suggestive evidence of association with RCC in the overall analysis. Two protective factors had suggestive evidence (vegetables (0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.86) and vitamin C (0.77, 0.66 to 0.90)) in overall analysis. One protective factor had convincing evidence (moderate drinking (0.77, 0.70 to 0.84)) in Europe and North America and one protective factor had highly suggestive evidence (cruciferous vegetables (0.78, 0.70 to 0.86)) in North America.

conclusionsAlthough many meta-analyses have assessed associations between dietary factors and RCC, no high-quality evidence exists (classes I and II) in the overall analysis. Increased intake of vegetables and vitamin C is negatively associated with RCC risk. Moderate drinking might be beneficial for Europeans and North Americans, and cruciferous vegetables might be beneficial to North Americans, but the results should be interpreted with caution. More researches are needed in the future.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021246619.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsDietHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicVegetablesBeverageDietDietary patternFood groupFoodsMacronutrientMicronutrientNutritionRenal cell carcinomaUmbrella review

Identifiers

PMID35109847
PMCPMC8812002
OpenAlexW4210377842

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.