4.3 Review

Serum Vitamin D Levels and Risk of Liver Cancer: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies

期刊

NUTRITION AND CANCER-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
卷 73, 期 8, 页码 1261-1269

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2020.1797127

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis found that individuals with higher serum vitamin D levels had a significantly lower risk of liver cancer, with a linear association between vitamin D levels and the risk. This suggests an inverse relationship between serum vitamin D levels and the risk of liver cancer.
Data regarding the relationship between serum vitamin D levels and the risk of liver cancer are conflicting. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of all available data of cohort studies on the association of 25-OH-vitamin-D levels with the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma. We conducted a systematic search in PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and Web of Science databases for prospective observational studies conducted on the general population from inception to May 2019. Six studies provided data from 6357 participants. According to the pooled HR, the subjects with the highest serum concentrations of vitamin D had a 47% lower risk of liver cancervs.the subjects with the lowest serum concentrations of vitamin D (pooled HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.41-0.68;P < 0.001). There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (P = 0.431, I-2 = 0.0). The pooled HR from the random-effects dose-response model indicated an indirect significant linear association between vitamin D and the risk of liver cancer (coef = -0.017,P < 0.001). However, there was no significant nonlinear dose-response association between serum vitamin D and the risk of liver cancer (coef = -0.0001,P = 0.342). The evidence from this meta-analysis suggests that there may be an inverse relationship between serum vitamin D levels and the risk of liver cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据