Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41314820›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

Folate exposures and risk of colorectal cancer: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised controlled trials.

Tongtong Li, Lina Yin, Yuan Li, Li Huang, Keming Zhang, Hongxia Wang, Duhui Xu, Jing Yan, Guowei Huang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors.

Tongtong LiDepartment of Nutrition and Food Science, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7958-2562
Lina YinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yuan LiDepartment of Nutrition and Food Science, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Li HuangDepartment of Nutrition and Food Science, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Keming ZhangFirst Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Tianjin, China.
Hongxia WangFirst Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Tianjin, China.
Duhui XuFirst Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Tianjin, China.
Jing YanDepartment of Health Management, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China huangguowei@tmu.edu.cn yanjing@tmu.edu.cn.
Guowei HuangDepartment of Nutrition and Food Science, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China huangguowei@tmu.edu.cn yanjing@tmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0346-6303

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically summarise and evaluate the existing evidence of the associations between diverse folate exposures and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), while identifying evidence quality.

designUmbrella review of meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase were searched from the database inception to March 2024, with an update to 12 October 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or observational studies that investigated the associations between folate exposures and CRC or precancerous lesions (ie, adenoma and polyps). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: For each association, we recalculated the summary effect size with 95% CI using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, heterogeneity (

resultsThis umbrella review included five meta-analyses describing 10 associations between folate exposures and CRC risk. In the general population, moderate-quality evidence supported an inverse association between total folate intake (from foods and supplements) and CRC risk (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.90), while low-quality evidence suggested inverse associations of dietary folate intake (from foods alone) (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and folic acid supplement intake (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90) with CRC risk. Among patients with inflammatory bowel disease, low-quality evidence suggested an inverse association between folic acid supplement intake and CRC incidence (HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96). Additionally, elevated circulating folate levels were observed to have a provoking effect on advanced-stage tumours (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.18 to 3.22; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE): very low). Sensitivity analysis revealed a potential increased risk of adenoma recurrence associated with folic acid supplement use among patients with a history of adenoma (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.29; GRADE: high).

conclusionsThese findings suggest that consuming dietary folate and total folate intake may be beneficial in CRC primary prevention. Specifically, folic acid supplements may inhibit colorectal carcinogenesis in normal tissues while promoting cancer in the established neoplastic foci. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024537550.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDietary SupplementsFolic AcidHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsFolic AcidGastrointestinal tumoursMeta-AnalysisNUTRITION & DIETETICSPREVENTIVE MEDICINEPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID41314820
PMCPMC12666042

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.