The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Oral bisphosphonates and risk of cancer of oesophagus, stomach, and colorectum: case-control analysis within a UK primary care cohort
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the hypothesis that risk of oesophageal, but not of gastric or colorectal, cancer is increased in users of oral bisphosphonates. DESIGN: Nested case-control analysis within a primary care cohort of about 6 million people in the UK, with prospectively recorded information on prescribing of bisphosphonates. SETTING: UK General Practice Research Database cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 40 years or over-2954 with oesophageal cancer, 2018 with gastric cancer, and 10 641 with colorectal cancer, diagnosed in 1995-2005; five controls per case matched for age, sex, general practice, and observation time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risks for incident invasive cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, and colorectum, adjusted for smoking, alcohol, and body mass index. RESULTS: The incidence of oesophageal cancer was increased in people with one or more previous prescriptions for oral bisphosphonates compared with those with no such prescriptions (relative risk 1.30, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to1.66; P=0.02). Risk of oesophageal cancer was significantly higher for 10 or more prescriptions (1.93, 1.37 to 2.70) than for one to nine prescriptions (0.93, 0.66 to 1.31) (P for heterogeneity=0.002), and for use for over 3 years (on average, about 5 years: relative risk v no prescription, 2.24, 1.47 to 3.43). Risk of oesophageal cancer did not differ significantly by bisphosphonate type, and risk in those with 10 or more bisphosphonate prescriptions did not vary by age, sex, smoking, alcohol intake, or body mass index; by diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture, or upper gastrointestinal disease; or by prescription of acid suppressants, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or corticosteroids. Cancers of the stomach and colorectum were not associated with prescription of bisphosphonate: relative risks for one or more versus no prescriptions were 0.87 (0.64 to 1.19) and 0.87 (0.77 to 1.00). The specificity of the association for oesophageal cancer argues against methodological problems in the selection of cases and controls or in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of oesophageal cancer increased with 10 or more prescriptions for oral bisphosphonates and with prescriptions over about a five year period. In Europe and North America, the incidence of oesophageal cancer at age 60-79 is typically 1 per 1000 population over five years, and this is estimated to increase to about 2 per 1000 with five years' use of oral bisphosphonates.
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
Cancer Incidence in Five Continents
(1966) · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-85849-9 · Cited by 5,936
Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review
Herrett, E., Thomas, S. L., Schoonen, W. M., Smeeth, L., & Hall, A. J. (2010) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03537.x · Cited by 1,109
MacLean, C., Newberry, S., Maglione, M., McMahon, M., Ranganath, V., Suttorp, M., Mojica, W., Timmer, M., Alexander, A., McNamara, M., et al. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-3-200802050-00198 · Cited by 529
Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Shekelle, P., Hopkins, R., Forciea, M. A., Owens, D. K., & Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee of the American College of Physicians (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-6-200809160-00007 · Cited by 180
Cited by
European guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women
on behalf of the Scientific Advisory Board of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis (ESCEO) and the Committees of Scientific Advisors and National Societies of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF), Kanis, J. A., Cooper, C., Rizzoli, R., & Reginster, J.-Y. (2019) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-018-4704-5 · Cited by 1,900
Camacho, P. M., Petak, S. M., Binkley, N., Diab, D. L., Eldeiry, L. S., Farooki, A., Harris, S. T., Hurley, D. L., Kelly, J., Lewiecki, E. M., et al. (2020) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/gl-2020-0524suppl · Cited by 1,182
Camacho, P. M., Petak, S. M., Binkley, N., Clarke, B. L., Harris, S. T., Hurley, D. L., Kleerekoper, M., Lewiecki, E. M., Miller, P. D., Narula, H. S., et al. (2016) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/ep161435.esgl · Cited by 1,140
Qaseem, A., Forciea, M. A., McLean, R. M., Denberg, T. D., & for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians* (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-1361 · Cited by 676
Benefits and risks of bisphosphonate therapy for osteoporosis
Khosla, S., Bilezikian, J. P., Dempster, D. W., Lewiecki, E. M., Miller, P. D., Neer, R. M., Recker, R. R., Shane, E., Shoback, D., & Potts, J. T. (2012) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2012-1027 · Cited by 290
Interpreting observational studies: why empirical calibration is needed to correct p‐values
Schuemie, M. J., Ryan, P. B., DuMouchel, W., Suchard, M. A., & Madigan, D. (2014) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5925 · Cited by 234
Role of inflammation in the aging bones
Abdelmagid, S. M., Barbe, M. F., & Safadi, F. F. (2015) · Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.lfs.2014.11.011 · Cited by 134
Improving reproducibility by using high-throughput observational studies with empirical calibration
Schuemie, M. J., Ryan, P. B., Hripcsak, G., Madigan, D., & Suchard, M. A. (2018) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2017.0356 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Green, J., Czanner, G., Reeves, G., Watson, J., Wise, L., & Beral, V.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2010-09-01
- Volume
- 341
- Issue
- sep01 3
- Pages
- c4444-c4444
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2136292511
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 20.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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.