Cited by 70Cancer Risks and FactorsColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Body weight gain and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies

Schlesinger, S., Lieb, W., Koch, M., Fedirko, V., Dahm, C. C., Pischon, T., Nöthlings, U., Boeing, H. +1 more·2015·Obesity Reviews

Abstract

While the relationship between body mass index as an indicator of excess body weight and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is well established, the association between body weight gain in adulthood and risk of CRC remains unresolved. We quantified this association in a meta-analysis of 12 observational studies published until November 2014 with a total of 16,151 incident CRC cases. Random effect models were used to obtain summary relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Between-study heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) statistics. Overall, the summary RR (95% CI) was 1.22 (1.14-1.30) for high body weight gain (midpoint: 15.2 kg) compared with stable weight (P for heterogeneity = 0.182; I(2) = 21.2%). In a dose-response analysis, each 5 kg weight gain was associated with a 4% (95% CI: 2%-5%) higher risk of CRC. The association persisted after adjustment for body weight at younger age and was present for both men and women, as well as for colon and rectal cancer. Differences by sex were detected for colon cancer (P for interaction = 0.003, with higher risk for men than women), but not for rectal cancer (P for interaction = 0.613). In conclusion, these data underscore the importance of body weight management from early adulthood onwards for the prevention of CRC development.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/obr.12286

Cites

7 of 7 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

Authors
Schlesinger, S., Lieb, W., Koch, M., Fedirko, V., Dahm, C. C., Pischon, T., Nöthlings, U., Boeing, H., & Aleksandrova, K.
Affiliations
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Max Delbrück Center (DE)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • German Institute of Human Nutrition (DE)
Corresponding author
Schlesinger, S.
Venue
Obesity Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-29
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
607-619
ISSN
  • 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-789X
OpenAlex
W2113273056
Cited by
70
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MDC Repository (Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
weight gain, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, body mass index, overweight, cancer risk, dose-response relationship, sex differences, weight management, cancer prevention
MeSH terms
Humans, Obesity, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Colorectal Neoplasms, Weight Gain, Risk Assessment, Risk Reduction Behavior, Waist Circumference, Observational Studies as Topic

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