SynthesisClinical and translational science2025
Chemoprevention of Gastrointestinal Cancers: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies.
Synthesis in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer.Immunological reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several meta-analyses have investigated the association between chemopreventive agents (CPAs) and the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, but syntheses of the quality of evidence in aggregate are lacking. This umbrella review aimed to assess the quality of evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that examine inverse associations between CPAs and the risk of gastrointestinal cancers or any premalignant conditions. Summary effect sizes from random-effects models, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval, small-study effect, excess significance, and credibility ceilings were devised to classify the credibility of evidence from meta-analyses of cohort studies, whereas the GRADE approach was used for meta-analyses of RCTs. From 20,296 publications, 577 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 69 articles that provided 194 unique meta-analyses were included. Among meta-analyses of RCTs (N = 93), 26 reached statistical significance (p < 0.05). Seven inverse associations were graded as either high quality (celecoxib and colorectal adenomas, (N = 4)) or moderate (aspirin and colorectal adenomas, (N = 2) and H-pylori eradication and gastric cancer (N = 1)). Among meta-analyses of cohort studies (N = 101), 60 reached statistical significance. Four inverse associations were graded as either convincing (antivirals with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); N = 1) or highly suggestive (aspirin with HCC (N = 2) and colorectal cancer (N = 1)). This review suggests that the associations with the most consistent empirical evidence were confined to those targeting the well-established risk factors of gastrointestinal cancer progression. Despite the limited established evidence, the inverse associations observed between metformin and colorectal, esophageal, and gastric cancers, as well as between statins and HCC and gastric cancer, merit further research.
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.