Association of dietary nitrate and nitrite from plant sources with digestive system cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
메타분석
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
585 participants, which included 10 different types of digestive tumors.
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
[CONCLUSIONS] Plant-derived nitrate and nitrite intakes were not significantly associated with DSCs. This relationship may be affected by subgroup variables, and a dose‒response analysis indicated that higher nitrate intake was linked to a reduced risk of gastric cancer.
[BACKGROUND] Recent studies have indicated that dietary nitrate intake from plant sources offers numerous health benefits.
- p-value P = 0.05
- p-value P = 0.022
- RR 0.92
- 연구 설계 systematic review
APA
Long B, Jiang C, et al. (2025). Association of dietary nitrate and nitrite from plant sources with digestive system cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Nutrition & metabolism, 22(1), 84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12986-025-00973-6
MLA
Long B, et al.. "Association of dietary nitrate and nitrite from plant sources with digestive system cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.." Nutrition & metabolism, vol. 22, no. 1, 2025, pp. 84.
PMID
40713740 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[BACKGROUND] Recent studies have indicated that dietary nitrate intake from plant sources offers numerous health benefits. However, the relationships between the intake of plant-derived nitrates and nitrites and the risk of digestive system cancers (DSCs) remain unclear. This study aimed to quantify the associations between dietary nitrate and nitrite from plant sources and the risk of DSCs via a systematic review and meta-analysis.
[METHODS] We conducted extensive literature searches of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases up to April 2024. STATA 14.0 was applied for meta-regression and meta-analysis, and fixed or random effects models were used to calculate the pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity.
[RESULTS] Our analysis included 13 articles with a total of 897,585 participants, which included 10 different types of digestive tumors. The pooled results indicated no significant association between high (median: >134.9 mg/day) [RR = 0.92; 95% CI (0.82-1.03); P = 0.14] or moderate (median: 83.0-133.1 mg/day) [RR = 0.95; 95% CI (0.89-1.02); P = 0.186] nitrate intake and DSCs. Similarly, neither high (median: >0.91 mg/day) [RR = 0.91; 95% CI (0.84-1.00); P = 0.05] nor moderate (median: 0.75 mg/day) [RR = 0.96; 95% CI (0.89-1.04); P = 0.355] nitrite intake was correlated with DSCs. However, a negative association was observed between nitrate or nitrite intake and DSCs when the data were stratified by subgroup variables such as study type, sex, region, antioxidant intake, and fibre intake. A meta-regression dose‒response analysis revealed that the risk of gastric cancer was negatively associated with the median intake of plant-derived nitrates [slope= -0.0047 per mg/day; 95% CI (-0.0086--0.0008); P = 0.022].
[CONCLUSIONS] Plant-derived nitrate and nitrite intakes were not significantly associated with DSCs. This relationship may be affected by subgroup variables, and a dose‒response analysis indicated that higher nitrate intake was linked to a reduced risk of gastric cancer.
[METHODS] We conducted extensive literature searches of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases up to April 2024. STATA 14.0 was applied for meta-regression and meta-analysis, and fixed or random effects models were used to calculate the pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity.
[RESULTS] Our analysis included 13 articles with a total of 897,585 participants, which included 10 different types of digestive tumors. The pooled results indicated no significant association between high (median: >134.9 mg/day) [RR = 0.92; 95% CI (0.82-1.03); P = 0.14] or moderate (median: 83.0-133.1 mg/day) [RR = 0.95; 95% CI (0.89-1.02); P = 0.186] nitrate intake and DSCs. Similarly, neither high (median: >0.91 mg/day) [RR = 0.91; 95% CI (0.84-1.00); P = 0.05] nor moderate (median: 0.75 mg/day) [RR = 0.96; 95% CI (0.89-1.04); P = 0.355] nitrite intake was correlated with DSCs. However, a negative association was observed between nitrate or nitrite intake and DSCs when the data were stratified by subgroup variables such as study type, sex, region, antioxidant intake, and fibre intake. A meta-regression dose‒response analysis revealed that the risk of gastric cancer was negatively associated with the median intake of plant-derived nitrates [slope= -0.0047 per mg/day; 95% CI (-0.0086--0.0008); P = 0.022].
[CONCLUSIONS] Plant-derived nitrate and nitrite intakes were not significantly associated with DSCs. This relationship may be affected by subgroup variables, and a dose‒response analysis indicated that higher nitrate intake was linked to a reduced risk of gastric cancer.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- Comparative Detection Performance of PSMA and Non-PSMA PET Tracers in Recurrent and Primary Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
- Bayes factor hypothesis testing in meta-analyses: Practical advantages and methodological considerations.
- Large-scale meta-analysis and precision functional assays identify FANCM regions in which PTVs confer different risks for ER-negative and triple-negative breast cancer.
- Clinical, Dermatoscopic, Histological and Molecular Prognostic and Predictive Factors of Metastatic Melanoma Response to Immunotherapy: A Systematic Review and Drug Class Meta-Analysis.
- Comparative efficacy of different therapeutic approaches in treatment naïve FLT3-mutated AML eligible for intensive chemotherapy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized trials.
- Mastitis as a risk factor for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.