4.5 Review

Diabetes mellitus and the risk of bladder cancer A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of cohort studies

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 96, 期 46, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008588

关键词

bladder cancer; diabetes mellitus; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Epidemiologic studies have reported inconsistent results regarding the relationship between diabetes mellitus (DM) and the incidence of bladder cancer. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis explored and evaluated this relationship in participants with different characteristics. Methods: Studies indexed in the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases that compared bladder cancer incidence mortality between DM and non-DM participants were included in the present study. The relative risks (RRs) of a random-effects model were used to assess these associations. Results: The final analysis included 21 cohort studies, involving a total of 13,505,643 participants. Overall, DM was associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer or cancer mortality when compared with non-DM participants (RR: 1.23; 95% confidence interval [ CI]: 1.12-1.35; P<.001). Furthermore, DM had a harmful impact on subsequent bladder cancer risk in men compared with those without DM (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.06-1.42; P=.005), whereas no significant relationship was observed between DM and bladder cancer in women (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.95-1.61; P=.119). There was no significant gender difference for this relationship (ratio of RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.73-1.34; P=.958). In addition, cancer incidence (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.09-1.35; P<.001) and cancer mortality (RR: 1.25; 1.17-1.35; P<.001) both increased in DM patients. Finally, smoking status and follow-up duration might also affect this relationship in men and women. Conclusions: The findings of this study indicated that DM was associated with elevated bladder cancer or cancer mortality risk, especially in men. This relationship in women requires further exploration.

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

4.5
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