Dataset Information

Association Between Diet Quality and Risk of Ovarian and Endometrial Cancers: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological Studies

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The relationship between diet quality indices and risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers were unclear. We aimed at conducting a systematic review to evaluate the epidemiological evidence.

Methods

Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for eligible studies up to December 2020. Epidemiological studies reported the association of the diet quality with risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers were evaluated.

Results

Eleven eligible studies were identified, of which six studies were case-control studies, four were cohort studies, and one was case-cohort study. All studies were considered as high-quality with low risk of bias. Seven studies evaluated the association of diet quality with risk of ovarian cancer. Four studies reported null association for diet quality indices such as Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2005, HEI-2010, Mediterranean Diet Score (MDS) and Recommended Foods Score (RFS). Two studies reported significantly inverse association for Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI)-2010 and Healthy Diet Score (HDS) indices. One study reported significantly increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with higher level of Dietary Guidelines for Americans Index. Dose-response analysis showed pooled relative risks of 0.98 (95%Cl: 0.95, 1.01) and 0.94 (95%Cl: 0.77, 1.13) for each 10 points increase in the HEI-2005 and AHEI-2010 indices. Seven studies evaluated the association of diet quality with risk of endometrial cancer. Three studies reported significantly inverse association of diet quality as assessed by the MDS and Diet Score Quintiles with risk of endometrial cancer. Four studies reported null association for other diet quality indices including HEI-2005, HEI-2010, RFS and HDS. Dose-response analysis showed a pooled relative risk of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.81, 0.93) for one unit increment of the MDS.

Conclusion

This study suggests little evidence on the association between diet quality and risk of ovarian cancer. Adherence to high quality diet, as assessed by MDS, might be associated with lower the risk of endometrial cancer.

SUBMITTER: Zhang Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8168438 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: We sought to investigate the methodological and reporting quality of published systematic reviews describing randomized controlled trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus and analyze their association with status of protocol registration. Methods: We searched the PubMed database and identified non-Cochrane systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, reporting on type 2 diabetes mellitus and published between 2005 and 2018. We then randomly selected 20% of these reviews in each year, and performed methodological and reporting quality assessment using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We also conducted regression analyses to explore the association between characteristics of systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 or PRISMA scores. Results: A total of 238 systematic reviews, including 33 registered and 205 non-registered articles, met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently reviewed. Analysis indicated an increase in both registered rates and quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus over the recent years. With regards to methodological and reporting quality, we found higher scores in registered, relative to non-registered reviews (AMSTAR-2 mean score: 18.0 vs. 14.5, P = 0.000; PRISMA mean score: 20.4 vs. 17.6, P = 0.000). AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores were associated with registration status, country of the first author, and statistical results, whereas the proportion of discussing publication bias and reporting funding sources were <40% for both registered and non-registered systematic reviews. Conclusions: Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus indicates an improvement in the recent years. However, the overall quality remains low, necessitating further improvement. Future studies are expected to pay more attention to prospective registration, description of publication bias and reporting of funding sources.