| Title |
Association between dietary carbohydrate intake, glycemic index and glycemic load, and risk of gastric cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nutrition, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00394-016-1166-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yao Ye, Yihua Wu, Jinming Xu, Kefeng Ding, Xiaoyun Shan, Dajing Xia |
| Abstract |
The association between dietary carbohydrate intake, glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL), and risk of gastric cancer (GC) has been investigated by many studies. However, the results of these studies were controversial. The aim of our study was to systematically assess this issue. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched up to March 2015, and either a fixed- or a random-effects model was adopted to estimate overall relative risks (RRs). Dose-response, meta-regression, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were applied. Twenty-six studies with approximately 540,000 participants were finally included in this meta-analysis. High level of dietary carbohydrate intake (pooled RR 1.17, 95 % CI 0.91-1.50), GI (pooled RR 1.17, 95 % CI 0.80-1.69), and GL (pooled RR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.90-1.26) were all nonsignificantly associated with incidence of GC. In addition, no significant dose-response relationship was observed between carbohydrate intake, GI and GL, and the risk of GC. However, further subgroup analyses based on gender and geographic region suggested a significant association between higher carbohydrate intake (pooled RR 1.52, 95 % CI 1.10-2.08), GL (pooled RR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.04-1.92), and GC risk in males subgroup, and between higher carbohydrate intake (pooled RR 1.69, 95 % CI 1.36-2.09) and GC risk in Asian studies. No significant association was found between dietary carbohydrate intake, GI and GL, and risk of GC. However, significantly positive association was observed in the males subgroup and Asian studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,542,806
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#1,965
of 2,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291,241
of 401,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#44
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,400 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 401,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.