SynthesisPloS one2025
Association between anthropometric factors and meningioma risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations of surgical menopause and hormone replacement therapy with meningioma development.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Obesity and Cancer: Mechanisms, Epidemiological Evidence, and Potential Risk Reduction.Journal of obesity & metabolic syndrome · 2026Review
- Incidence of meningioma in women with a history of combined oral contraceptive pill use and polycystic ovary syndrome.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData regarding the association between anthropometric factors and meningioma risk are inconsistent. Our aim was to investigate the association of body mass index (BMI), height, waist to hip ratio (WHR), waist circumference, and meningioma risk through a comprehensive meta-analysis.
methodsAn extensive review of literature was conducted in PubMed and Embase databases. Random-effects models were used to pool the study-specific relative risk estimates (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Moreover, we employed a dose-response meta-analysis with a one-stage robust error meta-regression (REMR) model.
resultsWe included nine prospective studies for four anthropometric factors listed above and meningioma risk. Compared with normal weight, both overweight (RR:1.11, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.19; P = 0.003, I2 = 0.0%) and obesity (RR: 1.38, 95% CI:1.16, 1.64; P < 0.001, I2 = 54.7%) were statistically significantly associated with meningioma risk. Dose-response analysis showed a nonlinear relationship between BMI and meningioma risk (P = 0.038). For height, a positive association was identified for men (RR:1.30, 95% CI:1.08, 1.56; P = 0.005, I2 = 0.0%) but not women (RR:1.13, 95% CI: 0.94,1.36; P = 0.186, I2 = 49.8%). Highest vs. lowest levels analyses also showed a positive association between meningioma risk and waist circumference (RR:1.89, 95% CI:1.34, 2.66; P < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%) and WHR (RR:1.40, 95% CI:1.00, 1.94; P = 0.048, I2 = 0.0%).
conclusionOur meta-analysis indicates greater height (in men) and excess weight and body fat mass were associated with an increased risk of meningioma. Further prospective studies with particular attention to sex disparity and dose-response analysis are warranted to confirm our observation.
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.