4.6 Article

Dose-specific meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis of the relation between alcohol consumption and lung cancer risk

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 155, 期 6, 页码 496-506

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/155.6.496

关键词

alcohol drinking; lung neoplasms; meta-analysis; smoking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alcohol drinking increases the risk of several types of cancer, but studies of the relation between alcohol and lung cancer risk are complicated by smoking. The authors carried out meta-analyses for four study designs and conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the results. Pooled smoking-unadjusted relative risks (FIRS) for brewery workers and alcoholics were 1.17 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99, 1.39) and 1.99 (95% CI: 1.66, 2.39), respectively, relative to population rates. For cohort and case-control studies, the authors conducted dose-specific meta-analyses for ethanol consumption of 1-499, 500-999, 1,000-1,999, and greater than or equal to22,000 g/month, relative to nondrinking. Smoking-adjusted FIRS for ascending dose groups in cohort studies were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.79, 1.21), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.81,1.04),1.04 (95% CI: 0.88,1.22), and 1.53 (95% CI: 1.04, 2.25), respectively. Smoking-adjusted odds ratios for ascending groups in case-control studies were 0.63 (95% CI: 0.51, 0.78), 1.30 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.70), 1.13 (95% CI: 0.46, 2.75), and 1.86 (95% CI: 1.39, 2.49), respectively. Elevated odds ratios were seen for hospital-based case-control studies but not for population-based case-control studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that smoking explained the elevated RRs in studies of alcoholics and that strong misclassification of smoking status could produce an elevated smoking-adjusted FIR in cohort and case-control studies. Overall, evidence for a smoking-adjusted association between alcohol and lung cancer risk is limited to very high consumption groups in cohort and hospital-based case-control studies. At lower levels, any associations observed appear to be explained by confounding.

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

4.6
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