Type 2 diabetes and cancer: umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies

By K. Tsilidis, John C Kasimis, D. S. Lopez, E. Ntzani, John P. A. Ioannidis. British medical journal, 2015

754 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Objectives To summarise the evidence and evaluate the validity of the associations between type 2 diabetes and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. Design An umbrella review of the evidence across meta-analyses of observational studies of type 2 diabetes with risk of developing or dying from any cancer. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and manual screening of references. Eligibility criteria Meta-analyses or systematic reviews of observational studies in humans that examined the association between type 2 diabetes and risk of developing or dying from cancer. Results Eligible meta-analyses assessed associations between type 2 diabetes and risk of developing cancer in 20 sites and mortality for seven cancer sites. The summary random effects estimates were significant at P=0.05 in 20 meta-analyses (74%); and all reported increased risks of developing cancer for participants with versus without diabetes. Of the 27 meta-analyses, eventually only seven (26%) compiled evidence on more than 1000 cases, had significant summary associations at P≤0.001 for both random and fixed effects calculations, and had neither evidence of small study effects nor evidence for excess significance. Of those, only six (22%) did not have substantial heterogeneity (I2>75%), pertaining to associations between type 2 diabetes and risk of developing breast, cholangiocarcinoma (both intrahepatic and extrahepatic), colorectal, endometrial, and gallbladder cancer. The 95% prediction intervals excluded the null value for four of these associations (breast, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal, and endometrial cancer). Conclusions Though type 2 diabetes has been extensively studied in relation to risk of developing cancer and cancer mortality and strong claims of significance exist for most of the studied associations, only a minority of these associations have robust supporting evidence without hints of bias.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1d51ca12c26add7cc983972f9723aad6db032797

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. Prashanth Rawla
  2. T. Sunkara
  3. Adam Barsouk

Citations in the corpus