A meta-analysis of active smoking and risk of meningioma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Meningioma accounts for approximately 25% of all primary adult intracranial tumors, and it is more common in women. It is more common in middleaged and elderly patients 8 . Many epidemiological studies have investigated the possible link between the occurrence of meningioma and smoking, but the results were inconsistent. Three studies found a positive association between active smoking (in men 9- 11 ) and meningioma. However, others studies did not find a positive association between active smoking (in men Recently, a meta-analysis by Fan et al. However, the results of studies exploring the relationship between smoking exposure and the occurrence of meningioma are inconsistent. METHODS A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science Direct (up to June 2020) databases was performed. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed for judging the quality of articles. A random-effects model was utilized for meta-analysis. Association analysis between smoking and meningioma was based on the adjusted RR and the 95% CI, as reported by eligible studies. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed and publication bias was assessed. Subgroup analysis was conducted by geographical region, study design, sex, study quality, and adjustments of RR score. Begg's and Egger's tests were employed for detecting publication bias. RESULTS Twelve articles, including 2 cohort studies and 10 case-control studies, and a total of 1210167 participants were identified. The pooled relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) implied that smoking was not associated with increased risk of meningioma in men and women combined (RR=1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). From the sex-stratified subgroup analysis, the risk of meningioma was significant in men (RR=1.42; 95% CI: 1.16-1.74). Risk of meningioma in women did not remain significant (RR=0.92; 95% CI: 0.73-1.16). There was a high heterogeneity in the results (I 2 =58.4%, p=0.002). Sensitivity analyses showed stable results and there was no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS Cigarette smoking is not associated with a significantly increased risk of meningioma in the whole population, but there is a positive association in men but not in women.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».