↓ Skip to main content

Selenium for preventing cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

43 tweeters
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

299 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
1 Connotea
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.
Selenium for preventing cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005195.pub4
Pubmed ID

Vinceti, Marco, Filippini, Tommaso, Del Giovane, Cinzia, Dennert, Gabriele, Zwahlen, Marcel, Brinkman, Maree, Zeegers, Maurice PA, Horneber, Markus, D'Amico, Roberto, Crespi, Catherine M, Marco Vinceti, Tommaso Filippini, Cinzia Del Giovane, Gabriele Dennert, Marcel Zwahlen, Maree Brinkman, Maurice PA Zeegers, Markus Horneber, Roberto D'Amico, Catherine M Crespi


This review is the third update of the Cochrane review "Selenium for preventing cancer". Selenium is a naturally occurring element with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancer. To gather and present evidence needed to address two research questions:1. What is the aetiological relationship between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans?2. Describe the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans. We updated electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (Ovid, 2013 to January 2017, week 4), and Embase (2013 to 2017, week 6), as well as searches of clinical trial registries. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies that enrolled adult participants. We performed random-effects (RE) meta-analyses when two or more RCTs were available for a specific outcome. We conducted RE meta-analyses when five or more observational studies were available for a specific outcome. We assessed risk of bias in RCTs and in observational studies using Cochrane's risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. We considered in the primary analysis data pooled from RCTs with low risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach. We included 83 studies in this updated review: two additional RCTs (10 in total) and a few additional trial reports for previously included studies. RCTs involved 27,232 participants allocated to either selenium supplements or placebo. For analyses of RCTs with low risk of bias, the summary risk ratio (RR) for any cancer incidence was 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.10; 3 studies, 19,475 participants; high-certainty evidence). The RR for estimated cancer mortality was 1.02 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.30; 1 study, 17,444 participants). For the most frequently investigated site-specific cancers, investigators provided little evidence of any effect of selenium supplementation. Two RCTs with 19,009 participants indicated that colorectal cancer was unaffected by selenium administration (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.43), as were non-melanoma skin cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.30 to 4.42; 2 studies, 2027 participants), lung cancer (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.50; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), breast cancer (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.44 to 9.55; 1 study, 802 participants), bladder cancer (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.52; 2 studies, 19,009 participants), and prostate cancer (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 4 studies, 18,942 participants). Certainty of the evidence was high for all of these cancer sites, except for breast cancer, which was of moderate certainty owing to imprecision, and non-melanoma skin cancer, which we judged as moderate certainty owing to high heterogeneity. RCTs with low risk of bias suggested increased melanoma risk.Results for most outcomes were similar when we included all RCTs in the meta-analysis, regardless of risk of bias. Selenium supplementation did not reduce overall cancer incidence (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 5 studies, 21,860 participants) nor mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 2 studies, 18,698 participants). Summary RRs for site-specific cancers showed limited changes compared with estimates from high-quality studies alone, except for liver cancer, for which results were reversed.In the largest trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial, selenium supplementation increased risks of alopecia and dermatitis, and for participants with highest background selenium status, supplementation also increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer. RCTs showed a slightly increased risk of type 2 diabetes associated with supplementation. A hypothesis generated by the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial - that individuals with low blood selenium levels could reduce their risk of cancer (particularly prostate cancer) by increasing selenium intake - has not been confirmed. As RCT participants have been overwhelmingly male (88%), we could not assess the potential influence of sex or gender.We included 15 additional observational cohort studies (70 in total; over 2,360,000 participants). We found that lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 7 studies, 76,239 participants) and lower cancer mortality (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97; 7 studies, 183,863 participants) were associated with the highest category of selenium exposure compared with the lowest. Cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.14, 4 studies, 29,365 men) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, 2 studies, 18,244 women). Data show a decrease in risk of site-specific cancers for stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, bladder, and prostate cancers. However, these studies have major weaknesses due to study design, exposure misclassification, and potential unmeasured confounding due to lifestyle or nutritional factors covarying with selenium exposure beyond those taken into account in multi-variable analyses. In addition, no evidence of a dose-response relation between selenium status and cancer risk emerged. Certainty of evidence was very low for each outcome. Some studies suggested that genetic factors might modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk - an issue that merits further investigation. Well-designed and well-conducted RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of selenium supplements in reducing cancer risk (high certainty of evidence). Some RCTs have raised concerns by reporting a higher incidence of high-grade prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes in participants with selenium supplementation. No clear evidence of an influence of baseline participant selenium status on outcomes has emerged in these studies.Observational longitudinal studies have shown an inverse association between selenium exposure and risk of some cancer types, but null and direct relations have also been reported, and no systematic pattern suggesting dose-response relations has emerged. These studies suffer from limitations inherent to the observational design, including exposure misclassification and unmeasured confounding.Overall, there is no evidence to suggest that increasing selenium intake through diet or supplementation prevents cancer in humans. However, more research is needed to assess whether selenium may modify the risk of cancer in individuals with a specific genetic background or nutritional status, and to investigate possible differential effects of various forms of selenium.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 284 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 17%
Student > Bachelor 51 17%
Researcher 50 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 16%
Student > Postgraduate 22 7%
Other 77 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 130 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 16%
Unspecified 30 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 5%
Other 51 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
of 10,402,379 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 9,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 271,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,402,379 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 271,961 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.