4.6 Review

Physical activity and cancer: an umbrella review of the literature including 22 major anatomical sites and 770 000 cancer cases

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 52, 期 13, 页码 826-+

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098391

关键词

-

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [2014/25614-4]
  2. World Cancer Research Fund International Regular Grant Programme (World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the World Cancer Research Fund International grant programme) [2014/1180]
  3. University of Sydney (Australia) [U2334]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To provide an overview of the breadth and validity of claimed associations between physical activity and risk of developing or dying from cancer. Design Umbrella review. Data sources We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews about physical activity and cancer incidence and cancer mortality in different body sites among general population. Results We included 19 reviews covering 22 cancer sites, 26 exposure-outcome pairs metaanalyses and 541 original studies. Physical activity was associated with lower risk of seven cancer sites (colon, breast, endometrial, lung, oesophageal, pancreas and meningioma). Only colon (a protective association with recreational physical activity) and breast cancer (a protective association with overall physical activity) were supported by strong evidence and highly suggestive evidence, respectively. Evidence from endometrial, lung, oesophageal, pancreas and meningioma presented hints of uncertainty and bias in the literature (eg, not reaching P values < 10(-6)) showing large between-study heterogeneity and/or not demonstrating a definite direction for the effect when 95% prediction intervals were considered. Four of the 26 meta-analyses showed small study effects and 4 showed excess significance. Conclusion Physical activity is associated with a lower risk of several cancers, but only colon and breast cancer associations were supported by strong or highly suggestive evidence, respectively. Evidence from other cancer sites was less consistent, presenting hints of uncertainty and/or bias.

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