Can anyone explain this

Tidyweb

Adequate consumption of folate may reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. We performed a meta-analysis of 7 cohort and 9 case-control studies that examined the association between folate consumption and colorectal cancer risk. In cohort studies, the association between folate consumption and colorectal cancer risk was stronger for dietary folate (folate from foods alone; relative risk for high vs. low intake = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.64-0.89) than for total folate (folate from foods and supplements; relative risk for high vs. low intake = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.81-1.11) and there was no significant heterogeneity between studies. There was significant heterogeneity between case-control studies. These results offer some support for the hypothesis that folate has a small protective effect against colorectal cancer but confounding by other dietary factors cannot be ruled out.
(c) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.




What is the paraghraph trying to say?

Tree

Do you have all the details on the paper? That looks like an abstract? Usually worth reading the full paper, as while abstracts are great, you can get a better understanding of the methods and their validity (and the authors usually spell out what they mean in plain english at the end)

Tidyweb

I understand that, you trying to get the idea of it.

Kwekubo

It appears to be this study.

What do you need clarification about, OP?

Nonoperational

It's basically saying that Folate may have a small beneficial effect in preventing colorectal cancer but it's not definitive and that the results showing some protective effect may be due to some confounding factor. A confounding factor is a factor other than the factor being studied that could influence the result. I didn't read the study but if you were looking a colorectal cancer then something like fibre could be a confounder.

Ryder

gpf101 wrote: »

It's basically saying that Folate may have a small beneficial effect in preventing colorectal cancer but it's not definitive and that the results showing some protective effect may be due to some confounding factor. A confounding factor is a factor other than the factor being studied that could influence the result. I didn't read the study but if you were looking a colorectal cancer then something like fibre could be a confounder.

This.....folate eaten in the diet appeared than supplements...the confounding factor being that perhaps eating a diet rich in folate and therefore green leafy vegetables etc is good for you.

mardybumbum

If the 95% CI contains 1, which it does for total folate isn't that statistically insignificant?

Tree

For a full interpretation we'll have to read the paper. But as a cursory look at the abstract, the total folate seems to be not so significant, but what is possibly significant is the relative shift shown by the dietary intake compared with the total.

Relative risk isn't intuitive (i think). 1 means nothing really matters, more than one increases teh risk of the adverse effect, and less than one shows a protective effect. So we see the dietary shift towards protective, and the total just hang around doing nothing useful. The explanation in teh paper is probably more comprehensive, but I haven't gone looking (bold tree)