| Title |
The Risk for Lung Cancer Incidence with Calcium Channel Blockers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Safety, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40264-018-0644-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Victoria Rotshild, Laurent Azoulay, Majd Zarifeh, Reem Masarwa, Bruria Hirsh-Raccah, Amichai Perlman, Mordechai Muszkat, Ilan Matok |
| Abstract |
There are conflicting findings regarding the association between the use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and the risk of lung cancer. Considering the public health importance of lung cancer prevention, and emerging evidence of a significant biologic role of calcium channel regulation in the development of lung cancer, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the risk of lung cancer in CCB users compared with non-CCB users. We conducted a comprehensive systematic search of leading medical databases for observational studies published up to December 2017 that examined CCB use and the risk of lung cancer. We used random-effects models to pool results. The impact of duration of CCB use on the estimated effect size was explored using random effects meta-regression. Ten studies (six cohort and four case-control studies) that evaluated the overall cancer risk among 38,758 CCB users were included in the analysis. Overall risk ratio (RR) for CCB use and lung cancer was 1.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.32). Subgroup analysis by duration of CCB use suggested that the observed increase in lung cancer risk was driven by the results of five studies with prolonged (≥ 4 years) exposure (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.08-1.30). Our analysis suggests exposure to CCBs is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Considering their widespread use, and the paucity of data on the long-term effects of chronic exposure to CCBs, these results are reason for concern and warrant further investigation. The protocol for this study was registered at the PROSPERO registry of systematic reviews (registry number: CRD42017056362). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 26% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 13 | 42% |
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 26 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,589,103
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Drug Safety
#1,527
of 1,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,746
of 330,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Safety
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 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 1,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 330,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.