中华临床医师杂志(电子版)
中華臨床醫師雜誌(電子版)
중화림상의사잡지(전자판)
CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICIANS(ELECTRONIC VERSION)
2014年
20期
3634-3639
,共6页
王小蕾%吕晓娟%王蔚虹%戴芸
王小蕾%呂曉娟%王蔚虹%戴蕓
왕소뢰%려효연%왕위홍%대예
便秘%结直肠肿瘤%Meta分析
便祕%結直腸腫瘤%Meta分析
편비%결직장종류%Meta분석
Constipation%Colorectal neoplasms%Meta-analysis
目的:研究便秘与结直肠癌的相关性。方法计算机检索 PubMed、MEDLINE、Cochrane library、Google scholar数据库至2014年8月1日,以获得探讨便秘与结直肠癌关系的病例对照研究和队列研究。使用Newcastle-OttawaScale(NOS)评价研究质量。采用RevMan 5.1.7软件分析数据,计算比值比(OR)及95%置信区间(95% CI),检验异质性并寻找其来源,应用漏斗图评估发表偏倚。结果共纳入11篇文献,NOS评分3~6分。5篇队列研究显示,便秘组结直肠癌发病率与非便秘组无统计学差异(OR=0.92,95%CI:0.55,1.52)。亚组分析显示,便秘组和非便秘组不同部位结直肠癌的发病率无统计学差异(结肠癌 OR=1.16,95% CI:0.78,1.73;直肠癌OR=0.90,95%CI:0.38,2.10)。6篇病例对照研究提示,结直肠癌组便秘发生率与对照组无统计学差异(OR=1.43,95%CI:0.99,2.04)。研究间存在异质性。结论病例对照研究及队列研究均提示便秘与结直肠癌无显著相关性。研究间存在异质性,有待高质量的研究进一步证实。
目的:研究便祕與結直腸癌的相關性。方法計算機檢索 PubMed、MEDLINE、Cochrane library、Google scholar數據庫至2014年8月1日,以穫得探討便祕與結直腸癌關繫的病例對照研究和隊列研究。使用Newcastle-OttawaScale(NOS)評價研究質量。採用RevMan 5.1.7軟件分析數據,計算比值比(OR)及95%置信區間(95% CI),檢驗異質性併尋找其來源,應用漏鬥圖評估髮錶偏倚。結果共納入11篇文獻,NOS評分3~6分。5篇隊列研究顯示,便祕組結直腸癌髮病率與非便祕組無統計學差異(OR=0.92,95%CI:0.55,1.52)。亞組分析顯示,便祕組和非便祕組不同部位結直腸癌的髮病率無統計學差異(結腸癌 OR=1.16,95% CI:0.78,1.73;直腸癌OR=0.90,95%CI:0.38,2.10)。6篇病例對照研究提示,結直腸癌組便祕髮生率與對照組無統計學差異(OR=1.43,95%CI:0.99,2.04)。研究間存在異質性。結論病例對照研究及隊列研究均提示便祕與結直腸癌無顯著相關性。研究間存在異質性,有待高質量的研究進一步證實。
목적:연구편비여결직장암적상관성。방법계산궤검색 PubMed、MEDLINE、Cochrane library、Google scholar수거고지2014년8월1일,이획득탐토편비여결직장암관계적병례대조연구화대렬연구。사용Newcastle-OttawaScale(NOS)평개연구질량。채용RevMan 5.1.7연건분석수거,계산비치비(OR)급95%치신구간(95% CI),검험이질성병심조기래원,응용루두도평고발표편의。결과공납입11편문헌,NOS평분3~6분。5편대렬연구현시,편비조결직장암발병솔여비편비조무통계학차이(OR=0.92,95%CI:0.55,1.52)。아조분석현시,편비조화비편비조불동부위결직장암적발병솔무통계학차이(결장암 OR=1.16,95% CI:0.78,1.73;직장암OR=0.90,95%CI:0.38,2.10)。6편병례대조연구제시,결직장암조편비발생솔여대조조무통계학차이(OR=1.43,95%CI:0.99,2.04)。연구간존재이질성。결론병례대조연구급대렬연구균제시편비여결직장암무현저상관성。연구간존재이질성,유대고질량적연구진일보증실。
Objective To examine the relationship between constipation and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods Original case-control and cohort studies published to August 2014 were selected by literature search in the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Google scholar. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to define study quality. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using RevMan 5.1.7 software. Sensitivity analyses were performed to detect the potential sources of heterogeneity. Funnel plot was used to assess publication bias. Results 11 studies were identified including 5 cohort studies and 6 case-control surveys with NOS scored from 3 to 6. No significant association was found between constipation and CRC in cohort studies (OR=0.92;95%CI 0.55, 1.52). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant association between constipation and colon cancer (OR=1.16, 95%CI 0.78, 1.73) or rectal cancer (OR=0.90, 95%CI 0.38, 2.10). No significant association was found between constipation and CRC in case-control studies (OR=1.43, 95% CI 0.99, 2.04). Significant heterogeneity was observed between studies. Conclusions Both Cohort and case-control studies demonstrated no significant association between constipation and CRC. Heterogeneity was observed between studies. More well designed studies are needed to confirm the conclusion.