The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Betel quid chewing and the risk of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: A meta‐analysis with implications for cancer control
Abstract
We conducted a random‐effects meta‐analysis of 50 publications assessing the relationship between oral/oropharyngeal cancer and chewing betel quid, with (BQ+T) or without added tobacco (BQ‐T), a common practice in many parts of Asia and globally among Asian immigrants. Exposure‐response, by daily amount and years of BQ chewed, was assessed using spline models. Attributable fractions (PAF%) were calculated to estimate the public health impact if BQ were no longer chewed. The meta‐relative risk (mRR) for oral/oropharyngeal cancer in the Indian subcontinent was 2.56 (95%CI, 2.00–3.28; 15 studies) for BQ‐T and 7.74 (95%CI, 5.38–11.13; 31 studies) for BQ+T; in Taiwan, China, the mRR for BQ‐T was 10.98 (95%CI, 4.86–24.84; 13 studies). Restricting to studies that adjusted for tobacco and alcohol use had only a small effect on the risk estimates. For BQ+T in the Indian subcontinent, the mRR was much higher in women (mRR, 14.56; 95%CI, 7.63–27.76) than in men. Exposure‐response analyses showed that the risk of oral/oropharyngeal cancer increased with increasing daily amount and duration (years) of chewing BQ in India and Taiwan, China. Roughly half of oral cancers in these countries could be prevented if BQ were no longer chewed (PAF% = 53.7% for BQ‐T in Taiwan, China; PAF% = 49.5% for BQ+T in India). We demonstrate that betel quid chewing, with or without added tobacco, increases the risk of oral/oropharyngeal cancer in an exposure‐dependent manner, independently of tobacco and alcohol use. Further work is needed to explain the higher risks associated with chewing BQ‐T in Taiwan, China.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256
Methods for Trend Estimation from Summarized Dose-Response Data, with Applications to Meta-Analysis
Greenland, S., & Longnecker, M. P. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116237 · Cited by 2,353
Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Bradburn, M. J. (2001) · Systematic Reviews in Health Care · doi:10.1002/9780470693926.ch15 · Cited by 2,163
Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis
Harris, R. J., Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., Bradburn, M. J., Harbord, R. M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0800800102 · Cited by 1,027
Cited by
Defining a global research and policy agenda for betel quid and areca nut
Mehrtash, H., Duncan, K., Parascandola, M., David, A., Gritz, E. R., Gupta, P. C., Mehrotra, R., Amer Nordin, A. S., Pearlman, P. C., Warnakulasuriya, S., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30460-6 · Cited by 221
Metadata
- Authors
- Guha, N., Warnakulasuriya, S., Vlaanderen, J., & Straif, K.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-05-14
- Volume
- 135
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1433-1443
- ISSN
- 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0215
- OpenAlex
- W1484036769
- Cited by
- 267
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.