SynthesisPloS one2022
Glycemic index, glycemic load, and lung cancer risk: A meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adherence to Data-Driven Dietary Patterns and Lung Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- Dietary Glycemic Index, Glycemic Load, and Risk of Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
- [Analysis of the relationship between sugar intake and cancer prevalence: a cross-sectional study using the 8th Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey].Korean journal of community nutrition · 2025Article
- Bread Consumption and Cancer Risk: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Review
- Pro-Vegetarian Food Patterns and Cancer Risk among Italians from the Moli-Sani Study Cohort.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Association between glycemic traits and melanoma: a mendelian randomization analysis.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGlycemic index (GI) or glycemic load (GL) has been investigated in the field of cancer research for several years. However, the relationship between GI or GL and lung cancer risk remains inconsistent. Therefore, this study aimed to summarize previous findings on this relationship.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science databases, and Cochrane Library were searched by July 2021. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. A fixed or random-effects model was adopted for meta-analysis to compute the pooled relative risks (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias analyses were also performed.
resultsIn total, nine articles were included, with four case-control studies and five cohort studies, including 17,019 cases and 786,479 controls. After merging the studies, pooled multivariable RRs of lung cancer based on the highest versus the lowest intake were 1.14 (95%CI: 1.03-1.26) and 0.93 (95%CI: 0.84-1.02) for GI and GL. Results persisted in most stratifications after stratifying by potential confounders in the relationship between GI and lung cancer risk. There was a non-linear dose response relation for GI with lung caner risk.
conclusionGI typically has a positive relationship with lung cancer risk. However, no associations between GL and lung cancer risk were observed based on current evidence, suggesting that this issue should be studied and verified further to substantiate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.