Evidence Hub

Sleep disturbances and the risk of lung cancer: a meta-epidemiological study

Zhou T, Wang Z, Qiao C, Wang S, Hu S, Wang X, Ma X, Wang D et al.

BMC cancer, 2023

469,691 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relationship between sleep disturbances and lung cancer is complex and bidirectional. This meta-epidemiological study aimed to explore the potential association between sleep disruption and the risk of pulmonary cancer.

METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to retrieve relevant studies. We employed the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the quality of the observational studies. Stata 17.0 was used to synthesize and conduct a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used funnel plot analysis and Egger's regression test to evaluate potential publication bias.

RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included with 469,691 participants. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from moderate to high. Compared with 7-8 h of sleep time, short sleep duration was associated with a 13% higher lung cancer risk [OR, 1.13; 95%CI: 1.02-1.25; I2 = 67.6%; P = 0.018] and long sleep duration with a 22% higher risk [OR, 1.22; 95%CI: 1.12-1.33; I2 = 6.9%; P < 0.001]. Insomnia symptoms [OR, 1.11; 95%CI: 1.07-1.16; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001] and evening chronotype [OR, 1.15; 95%CI: 1.05-1.26; P = 0.002] were all related to a higher risk of lung cancer. Egger's test revealed no publication bias for sleep duration (P = 0.13).

DISCUSSION: This systematic review is the first one which observes positive correction between sleep disturbances and the…

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: 469,691 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