Evidence Hub

Chemoprevention of Gastrointestinal Cancers: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies

Chan JE, Shanmugham S, Kumar S, Lee YY, Ching SM, Chaiyakunapruk N, Veettil SK

Clinical and translational science, 2025

101 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Several meta-analyses have investigated the association between chemopreventive agents (CPAs) and the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, but syntheses of the quality of evidence in aggregate are lacking. This umbrella review aimed to assess the quality of evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that examine inverse associations between CPAs and the risk of gastrointestinal cancers or any premalignant conditions. Summary effect sizes from random-effects models, between-study heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval, small-study effect, excess significance, and credibility ceilings were devised to classify the credibility of evidence from meta-analyses of cohort studies, whereas the GRADE approach was used for meta-analyses of RCTs. From 20,296 publications, 577 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 69 articles that provided 194 unique meta-analyses were included. Among meta-analyses of RCTs (N = 93), 26 reached statistical significance (p < 0.05). Seven inverse associations were graded as either high quality (celecoxib and colorectal adenomas, (N = 4)) or moderate (aspirin and colorectal adenomas, (N = 2) and H-pylori eradication and gastric cancer (N = 1)). Among meta-analyses of cohort studies (N = 101), 60 reached statistical significance. Four inverse associations were graded as either convincing (antivirals with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); N = 1) or highly suggestive (aspirin with HCC (N = 2) and colorectal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 101 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free