Is shift-work associated with increased risk of rectal cancer? A meta-analysis.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e15600 Background: Globally, more than 1.8 million people were diagnosed of colorectal cancer (CRC) in 2018, with over 30% of CRC in the rectum. Shift-work, involving circadian disruption, sleep deprivation and lifestyle changes, was designated as a probable cause of cancer by The International Agency for Research on Cancer. Previous studies investigating the impact of permanent night-shift work and rotating shift-work on rectal cancer risk showed controversial results. Thus, this meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: A comprehensive literature search on PubMed was conducted to identify all relevant studies published prior to January 2021 according to the established inclusion criteria. The quality assessment was performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to estimate the association between the shift-work and rectal cancer risk. Based on heterogeneity significance, random-effect or fixed-effect model was used. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the night-shift and rotating-shift, respectively. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias detection were performed, and trim and fill analysis was also conducted. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software (version 5.3; Cochrane library) and STATA 15.0 statistical software (Stata Corp., College Station, TX), and all P values were two-tailed, the test level was 0.05. Results: Thirty-seven articles were obtained from database searching. Three articles involving 1,063 rectal cancer cases were included. All studies were considered moderate to high quality. All included studies investigated on the association between shift-work and rectal cancer risk. A statistically significant association between shift-work and increased rectal cancer risk was found (OR 1.53, 95%CI: 1.31, 1.79, P< 0.00001, I 2 = 35%). In subgroup analyses, night-shift work was associated with a non-statistically significant increased risk of rectal cancer (OR 1.25, 95%CI: 0.47, 3.32, P = 0.66, I 2 = 93%). In contrast, Rotating-shift was associated with a statistically significant increased rectal cancer risk (OR 1.35, 95%CI: 1.10, 1.65, P = 0.004, I 2 = 6%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the result. Funnel plot, Egger's test (t = 1.69, P = 0.341), and Begg's test (z = 1.04, P = 0.296) found no publication bias of analysis. Trim and fill analysis on fixed-effect model showed the pooled OR kept stable after adding two “missing” studies (OR 1.403, 95%CI: 1.224, 1.609, P <0.05). Conclusions: The current meta-analysis demonstrates that shift-work is associated with increased rectal cancer risk. However, no association between night-shift work and rectal cancer risk was found. In contrast, association between rotating-shift work and increased rectal cancer risk was found. More original studies on this topic are needed to further explore shift-work impacts on rectal cancer risk.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,053 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».