TY - JOUR
T1 - Tobacco smoking and gastric cancer: meta-analyses of published data versus pooled analyses of individual participant data (StoP Project)
AU - Ferro, Ana
AU - Morais, Samantha
AU - Rota, Matteo
AU - Pelucchi, Claudio
AU - Bertuccio, Paola
AU - Bonzi, Rossella
AU - Galeone, Carlotta
AU - Zhang, Zuo-Feng
AU - Matsuo, Keitaro
AU - Ito, Hidemi
AU - Hu, Jinfu
AU - Johnson, Kenneth C.
AU - Yuo, Guo-Pei
AU - Palli, Domenico
AU - Ferraroni, Monica
AU - Muscat, Joshua
AU - Malekzadeh, Reza
AU - Ye, Weimin
AU - Song, Huan
AU - Zaridze, David
AU - Maximovitch, Dmitry
AU - Aragonés, Nuria
AU - Castaño-Vinyals, Gemma
AU - Vioque, Jesus
AU - Navarrete-Muñoz, Eva M.
AU - Pakseresht, Mohammadreza
AU - Pourfarzi, Farhad
AU - Wolk, Alicja
AU - Orsini, Nicola
AU - Bellavia, Andrea
AU - Håkansson, Niclas
AU - Mu, Lina
AU - Pastorino, Roberta
AU - Kurtz, Robert C.
AU - Derakhshan, Mohammad H.
AU - Lagiou, Areti
AU - Lagioul, Pagona
AU - Boffetta, Paolo
AU - Boccia, Stefania
AU - Negri, Eva
AU - Vecchia, Carlo La
AU - Peleteiro, Bárbara
AU - Lunet, Nuno
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - Tobacco smoking is one of the main risk factors for gastric cancer, but the magnitude of the association estimated by conventional systematic reviews and meta-analyses might be inaccurate, due to heterogeneous reporting of data and publication bias. We aimed to quantify the combined impact of publication-related biases, and heterogeneity in data analysis or presentation, in the summary estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses. We compared results from individual participant data pooled-analyses, including the studies in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with conventional meta-analyses carried out using only data available in previously published reports from the same studies. From the 23 studies in the StoP Project, 20 had published reports with information on smoking and gastric cancer, but only six had specific data for gastric cardia cancer and seven had data on the daily number of cigarettes smoked. Compared to the results obtained with the StoP database, conventional meta-analyses overvalued the relation between ever smoking (summary odds ratios ranging from 7% higher for all studies to 22% higher for the risk of gastric cardia cancer) and yielded less precise summary estimates (SE ≤2.4 times higher). Additionally, funnel plot asymmetry and corresponding hypotheses tests were suggestive of publication bias. Conventional meta-analyses and individual participant data pooled-analyses reached similar conclusions on the direction of the association between smoking and gastric cancer. However, published data tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication biases and limited the analyses by different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.
AB - Tobacco smoking is one of the main risk factors for gastric cancer, but the magnitude of the association estimated by conventional systematic reviews and meta-analyses might be inaccurate, due to heterogeneous reporting of data and publication bias. We aimed to quantify the combined impact of publication-related biases, and heterogeneity in data analysis or presentation, in the summary estimates obtained from conventional meta-analyses. We compared results from individual participant data pooled-analyses, including the studies in the Stomach Cancer Pooling (StoP) Project, with conventional meta-analyses carried out using only data available in previously published reports from the same studies. From the 23 studies in the StoP Project, 20 had published reports with information on smoking and gastric cancer, but only six had specific data for gastric cardia cancer and seven had data on the daily number of cigarettes smoked. Compared to the results obtained with the StoP database, conventional meta-analyses overvalued the relation between ever smoking (summary odds ratios ranging from 7% higher for all studies to 22% higher for the risk of gastric cardia cancer) and yielded less precise summary estimates (SE ≤2.4 times higher). Additionally, funnel plot asymmetry and corresponding hypotheses tests were suggestive of publication bias. Conventional meta-analyses and individual participant data pooled-analyses reached similar conclusions on the direction of the association between smoking and gastric cancer. However, published data tended to overestimate the magnitude of the effects, possibly due to publication biases and limited the analyses by different levels of exposure or cancer subtypes.
KW - Humans
KW - Publication Bias
KW - Risk Factors
KW - Stomach Neoplasms
KW - Tobacco Smoking
KW - Humans
KW - Publication Bias
KW - Risk Factors
KW - Stomach Neoplasms
KW - Tobacco Smoking
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/148285
U2 - 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000401
DO - 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000401
M3 - Article
SN - 0959-8278
VL - 27
SP - 197
EP - 204
JO - European Journal of Cancer Prevention
JF - European Journal of Cancer Prevention
ER -