scholarly journals Statin use and non-melanoma skin cancer risk: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

Oncotarget ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (43) ◽  
pp. 75411-75417 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keming Yang ◽  
Andrew Marley ◽  
Huilin Tang ◽  
Yiqing Song ◽  
Jean Y. Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Skin Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Non Melanoma Skin Cancer ◽  
Statin Use ◽  
Melanoma Skin

scholarly journals Statin Use and Risk of Lung Cancer: a Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e77950 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinliang Wang ◽  
Cheng Li ◽  
Haitao Tao ◽  
Yao Cheng ◽  
Lu Han ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Statin Use

Statins and Cancer Risk: A Literature-Based Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis of 35 Randomized Controlled Trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (30) ◽  
pp. 4808-4817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanos Bonovas ◽  
Kalitsa Filioussi ◽  
Nikolaos Tsavaris ◽  
Nikolaos M. Sitaras
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Regression Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Cancer ◽  
Statin Use

Purpose A growing body of literature suggests that statins may have chemopreventive potential against cancer. Our aim was to examine the strength of this association through a detailed meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A comprehensive search for trials published up to 2005 was performed, reviews of each study were conducted, and data were abstracted. Before meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using the random- and fixed-effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted. Results Thirty-five RCTs of statins for cardiovascular outcomes contributed to the analysis (n = 109,143). The degree of variability between trials was consistent with what would be expected to occur by chance alone. Statin use was not associated with a substantially increased or decreased overall risk of cancer (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.04). Similarly, statin use did not significantly affect respiratory cancer risk (RR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.09). However, the meta-regression analysis indicated that age of study participants modified the association between statin use and cancer risk (P = .003). Conclusion Our findings do not support a protective effect of statins against cancer. However, this conclusion is limited by the relatively short follow-up periods (4.5 years on average) of the studies analyzed. Thus, it is important to continue monitoring the long-term safety profiles of statins. Until then, physicians need to be vigilant in ensuring that statin use remains restricted to the approved indications.

Risk of Skin Cancer Associated with Metformin Use: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-84
Author(s):  
Michael S. Chang ◽  
Rebecca I. Hartman ◽  
Junchao Xue ◽  
Edward L. Giovannucci ◽  
Hongmei Nan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Skin Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confounding Variables

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

Dietary saturated fat and heart disease: a narrative review

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 474-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffery L Heileson
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Saturated Fat ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Disease Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract The American Heart Association (AHA) recently published a meta-analysis that confirmed their 60-year-old recommendation to limit saturated fat (SFA, saturated fatty acid) and replace it with polyunsaturated fat to reduce the risk of heart disease based on the strength of 4 Core Trials. To assess the evidence for this recommendation, meta-analyses on the effect of SFA consumption on heart disease outcomes were reviewed. Nineteen meta-analyses addressing this topic were identified: 9 observational studies and 10 randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses of observational studies found no association between SFA intake and heart disease, while meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of an association. The inconsistency seems to have been mediated by the differing clinical trials included. For example, the AHA meta-analysis only included 4 trials (the Core Trials), and those trials contained design and methodological flaws and did not meet all the predefined inclusion criteria. The AHA stance regarding the strength of the evidence for the recommendation to limit SFAs for heart disease prevention may be overstated and in need of reevaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document