↓ Skip to main content

Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
103 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
q&a
2 Q&A threads
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dietary fibre for the prevention of recurrent colorectal adenomas and carcinomas
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003430.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yibo Yao, Tao Suo, Roland Andersson, Yongqing Cao, Chen Wang, Jingen Lu, Evelyne Chui

Abstract

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in 2002.Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in industrialised countries. Experimental evidence has supported the hypothesis that dietary fibre may protect against the development of CRC, although epidemiologic data have been inconclusive. To assess the effect of dietary fibre on the recurrence of colorectal adenomatous polyps in people with a known history of adenomatous polyps and on the incidence of CRC compared to placebo. Further, to identify the reported incidence of adverse effects, such as abdominal pain or diarrhoea, that resulted from the fibre intervention. We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from Cochrane Colorectal Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase (search date, 4 April 2016). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Trials Registry Platform on October 2016. We included RCTs or quasi-RCTs. The population were those having a history of adenomatous polyps, but no previous history of CRC, and repeated visualisation of the colon/rectum after at least two-years' follow-up. Dietary fibre was the intervention. The primary outcomes were the number of participants with: 1. at least one adenoma, 2. more than one adenoma, 3. at least one adenoma greater than or equal to 1 cm, or 4. a new diagnosis of CRC. The secondary outcome was the number of adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed trial quality and resolved discrepancies by consensus. We used risk ratios (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to measure the effect. If statistical significance was reached, we reported the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or harmful outcome (NNTH). We combined the study data using the fixed-effect model if it was clinically, methodologically, and statistically reasonable. We included seven studies, of which five studies with 4798 participants provided data for analyses in this review. The mean ages of the participants ranged from 56 to 66 years. All participants had a history of adenomas, which had been removed to achieve a polyp-free colon at baseline. The interventions were wheat bran fibre, ispaghula husk, or a comprehensive dietary intervention with high fibre whole food sources alone or in combination. The comparators were low-fibre (2 to 3 g per day), placebo, or a regular diet. The combined data showed no statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups for the number of participants with at least one adenoma (5 RCTs, n = 3641, RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.13, low-quality evidence), more than one adenoma (2 RCTs, n = 2542, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, low-quality evidence), or at least one adenoma 1 cm or greater (4 RCTs, n = 3224, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.20, low-quality evidence) at three to four years. The results on the number of participants diagnosed with colorectal cancer favoured the control group over the dietary fibre group (2 RCTS, n = 2794, RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.85, low-quality evidence). After 8 years of comprehensive dietary intervention, no statistically significant difference was found in the number of participants with at least one recurrent adenoma (1 RCT, n = 1905, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.20), or with more than one adenoma (1 RCT, n = 1905, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.24). More participants given ispaghula husk group had at least one recurrent adenoma than the control group (1 RCT, n = 376, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.08). Other analyses by types of fibre intervention were not statistically significant. The overall dropout rate was over 16% in these trials with no reasons given for these losses. Sensitivity analysis incorporating these missing data shows that none of the results can be considered as robust; when the large numbers of participants lost to follow-up were assumed to have had an event or not, the results changed sufficiently to alter the conclusions that we would draw. Therefore, the reliability of the findings may have been compromised by these missing data (attrition bias) and should be interpreted with caution. There is a lack of evidence from existing RCTs to suggest that increased dietary fibre intake will reduce the recurrence of adenomatous polyps in those with a history of adenomatous polyps within a two to eight year period. However, these results may be unreliable and should be interpreted cautiously, not only because of the high rate of loss to follow-up, but also because adenomatous polyp is a surrogate outcome for the unobserved true endpoint CRC. Longer-term trials with higher dietary fibre levels are needed to enable confident conclusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 103 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 1%
Russia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 173 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 18%
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Unspecified 23 13%
Researcher 22 12%
Other 52 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 41%
Unspecified 29 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Other 34 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. 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 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#189,219
of 13,617,861 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#437
of 10,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,959
of 373,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,617,861 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,681 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 373,963 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.