CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsNutritional Studies and DietColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

INFLUENCE OF METHODOLOGIC FACTORS IN A POOLED ANALYSIS OF 13 CASE-CONTROL STUDIES OF COLORECTAL CANCER AND DIETARY FIBER

Friedenreich, Christine M., Brant, Rollin F., Riboli, Elio·1994·Epidemiology
DOI 10.1097/00001648-199401000-00011
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We examined the study design features and data collection methods from 13 case-control studies of colorectal cancer and diet, which had been previously combined and analyzed, to determine whether they influenced the results obtained from a pooled analysis. We assessed the methods used in each study, estimated a quality score, and used random effects models to re-estimate the pooled odds ratio for the association between dietary fiber and colorectal cancer for these data. Key features of the methods used in each study and the quality score were examined in random effects models to determine whether the heterogeneity found between study-specific risk estimates could be explained by these variables. The odds ratio for dietary fiber and colorectal cancer was 0.46 (95% confidence interval = 0.34-0.64) for the 13 case-control studies as estimated with a random effects model. Two factors, whether the diet questionnaire had been validated before use in the case-control study and whether qualitative data on dietary habits and cooking methods had been incorporated into the nutrient estimation, explained some of the heterogeneity found between studies. Risk estimates for dietary fiber and colorectal cancer were closer to the null for the studies that had these two characteristics. Quality score did not explain any between-study heterogeneity. Random effects models, which included fixed effects covariates, explained some between-study heterogeneity in these data and would be useful for future pooled analyses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001648-199401000-00011

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Friedenreich, C. M., Brant, R. F., & Riboli, E.
Affiliations
University of Calgary (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Epidemiology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1994-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
66-79
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00001648-199401000-00011
OpenAlex
W2032458802
Cited by
81
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Keywords
colorectal cancer, dietary fiber, pooled analysis, case-control study, data collection methods, cooking methods, study heterogeneity, random effects models
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Dietary Fiber, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Research Design, Risk Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Models, Statistical, Odds Ratio, Case-Control Studies

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