| Title |
Pioglitazone use in patients with diabetes and risk of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Management and Research, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cmar.s164840 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Huaqing Yan, Haiyun Xie, Yufan Ying, Jiangfeng Li, Xiao Wang, Xin Xu, Xiangyi Zheng |
| Abstract |
Pioglitazone has been reported to increase the risk of bladder cancer but the conclusions of published clinical studies are confusing. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all eligible randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies and observational studies, in order to identify a more precise relationship between pioglitazone and risk of bladder cancer. We searched for publications up to January 24, 2018, in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane register, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases, and the references of the retrieved articles and relevant reviews were also checked. Relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to assess this correlation. A dose-related meta-analysis was performed as well. Data on RCT studies showed a null association between pioglitazone and bladder cancer. The pooled RR estimates of the 12 included studies illustrated that pioglitazone is associated with a 14% increased risk of bladder cancer (95% CI 1.03-1.26). No evidence of publication bias was detected. In the dose effect analysis, patients who used a higher dose of pioglitazone had an increased risk of bladder cancer. In conclusion, this meta-analysis indicated that pioglitazone is associated with an increased risk of bladder cancer. Further research should be conducted to confirm our findings and reveal the potential biological mechanisms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 21 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 June 2020.
All research outputs
#5,636,570
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Management and Research
#215
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,059
of 329,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Management and Research
#8
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 329,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 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 90% of its contemporaries.