Dataset Information

Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To review systematically the evidence for an effect of long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fatty acids on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cancer.

Data sources

Electronic databases searched to February 2002; authors contacted and bibliographies of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) checked to locate studies.

Review methods

Review of RCTs of omega 3 intake for (3) 6 months in adults (with or without risk factors for cardiovascular disease) with data on a relevant outcome. Cohort studies that estimated omega 3 intake and related this to clinical outcome during at least 6 months were also included. Application of inclusion criteria, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed independently in duplicate.

Results

Of 15,159 titles and abstracts assessed, 48 RCTs (36,913 participants) and 41 cohort studies were analysed. The trial results were inconsistent. The pooled estimate showed no strong evidence of reduced risk of total mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.03) or combined cardiovascular events (0.95, 0.82 to 1.12) in participants taking additional omega 3 fats. The few studies at low risk of bias were more consistent, but they showed no effect of omega 3 on total mortality (0.98, 0.70 to 1.36) or cardiovascular events (1.09, 0.87 to 1.37). When data from the subgroup of studies of long chain omega 3 fats were analysed separately, total mortality (0.86, 0.70 to 1.04; 138 events) and cardiovascular events (0.93, 0.79 to 1.11) were not clearly reduced. Neither RCTs nor cohort studies suggested increased risk of cancer with a higher intake of omega 3 (trials: 1.07, 0.88 to 1.30; cohort studies: 1.02, 0.87 to 1.19), but clinically important harm could not be excluded.

Conclusion

Long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fats do not have a clear effect on total mortality, combined cardiovascular events, or cancer.

SUBMITTER: Hooper L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1420708 | biostudies-literature | 2006 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review.

Hooper Lee L Thompson Rachel L RL Harrison Roger A RA Summerbell Carolyn D CD Ness Andy R AR Moore Helen J HJ Worthington Helen V HV Durrington Paul N PN Higgins Julian P T JP Capps Nigel E NE Riemersma Rudolph A RA Ebrahim Shah B J SB Davey Smith George G

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20060324 7544

<h4>Objective</h4>To review systematically the evidence for an effect of long chain and shorter chain omega 3 fatty acids on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cancer.<h4>Data sources</h4>Electronic databases searched to February 2002; authors contacted and bibliographies of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) checked to locate studies.<h4>Review methods</h4>Review of RCTs of omega 3 intake for (3) 6 months in adults (with or without risk factors for cardiovascular disease) with data on ...[more]

PMID: 16565093

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient narratives are illustrative, individual accounts of patients' experiences with certain health conditions. Web-based patient narratives have become widely available on the internet and in social media, as part of electronically available patient decision aids or Web-based databases. In recent years, the role of patient narratives as a source of information, insight, and support for both health care users and providers has increasingly been emphasized. Although the potential impact of patient stories has high immediate plausibility, it is of interest to know if this impact can be captured in quantitative studies.ObjectiveThis review aimed to evaluate whether research-generated Web-based patient narratives have quantifiable risks or benefits for (potential) patients, relatives, or health care professionals.MethodsWe searched the following databases from August 2017 to March 2019: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies were reviewed and assessed for the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Papers were included if they studied the following: (1) (potential) patients, relatives, or health care professionals; (2) the effects of Web-based patient narratives that were generated scientifically (eg, through qualitative research methods); and (3) were quantitative studies. Furthermore, 2 authors independently performed an assessment of the quality of the included studies using a validated checklist.ResultsOf 4226 documents, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies investigated 10 different sources of Web-based patient narratives. Sample sizes ranged from 23 to 2458. The mean score of the quality assessment was 82.6 (range 61-100). Effects regarding five different purposes were identified as follows: provide information, engage, model behavior, persuade, and comfort. We found positive effects in every category and negative effects in one category (persuade). Several of the reported effects are rather small or were identified under specific experimental conditions.ConclusionsPatient narratives seem to be a promising means to support users in improving their understanding of certain health conditions and possibly to provide emotional support and have an impact on behavioral changes. There is limited evidence for beneficial effects on some outcomes. However, narratives are characterized by considerable heterogeneity and the investigated outcomes are hardly comparable with each other, which makes the overall judgment difficult. As there are numerous possible measures and purposes of narratives, quantifying the impact of Web-based patient narratives remains a challenge. Future research is needed to define the optimal standards for quantitative approaches to narrative-based interventions.

Project description:Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of anticancer drugs without active comparators in patients who have exhausted standard of care treatment options are debated. We aimed to quantify the safety and the efficacy of anticancer drugs in advanced cancer patients who have exhausted standard of care treatments from RCTs without active comparators.Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to preferred reporting Items for systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (CRD42021243968). A systematic literature search of English language publications from January 1, 2000, to January 7, 2021, was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible trials included all RCTs evaluating anticancer drugs in adult patients with advanced solid tumors with a control arm without any anticancer drug consisting of best supportive care with or without a placebo. RCTs performed in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant or maintenance settings were excluded, as were clinical trials evaluating anticancer drugs in combination with radiotherapy. Two authors (C.M.B. and E.C.) independently reviewed the studies for inclusion. Data from published reports were extracted by investigators, and random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the overall hazard ratios (HRs) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Correlations between severe toxicity and efficacy was assessed using R2 measures.Findings: Of 3551 studies screened, 128 eligible trials were found involving 47,432 patients. The HRs for PFS and OS were 0·58 [95%CI: 0·53-0·63] and 0·82 [95%CI: 0·78-0·85]. The absolute benefits however were limited with PFS and OS gains of 2·1 and 0·5 months. The absolute excesses in all grade, severe grade III, IV and V (death) adverse events between the two arms were +13·9%, 10·2%, and +0·5%. A weak correlation was measured between the excess of severe toxicity and efficacy (all R² < 0·2).Interpretation: Anticancer drugs evaluated in RCTs against no active treatment benefited trial participants. Severe toxicity did not significantly correlate with efficacy.FundingNone.

Dataset Information

Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review.

Objective

Data sources

Review methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Risks and benefits of omega 3 fats for mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets