2018
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-018-1447-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Serum magnesium levels and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis

Abstract: BackgroundWhether serum magnesium levels were lower in patients with lung cancer than that in healthy controls is controversial. The aim of this study was to identify and synthesize all citations evaluating the relationship between serum magnesium levels and lung cancer.MethodsWe searched PubMed, WanFang, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), and SinoMed databases for relevant studies before December 31, 2017. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.ResultsElev… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
6
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
6
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, plasma magnesium concentrations were only assessed at baseline; not only more frequent measurements would have been more informative but would have allowed verifying other potential confounders. Third, although previous studies suggested that the association between magnesium and risk of cancer varied between different cancer types, including colorectal [18], prostate [19, 24], and lung [25] cancers, there was no significant heterogeneity observed across different cancer subtypes in the current study. However, our current study was underpowered to investigate individual cancers.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Second, plasma magnesium concentrations were only assessed at baseline; not only more frequent measurements would have been more informative but would have allowed verifying other potential confounders. Third, although previous studies suggested that the association between magnesium and risk of cancer varied between different cancer types, including colorectal [18], prostate [19, 24], and lung [25] cancers, there was no significant heterogeneity observed across different cancer subtypes in the current study. However, our current study was underpowered to investigate individual cancers.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 69%
“…Dai et al [24] suggested low serum magnesium levels was significantly associated with high-grade prostate cancer. However, some other studies found no significant association [19, 25]. Moreover, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey study found that, compared to participants with serum magnesium of 0.8–0.89 mmol/L, a higher cancer mortality trend was found in those with serum magnesium of 0.9–0.95 mmol/L (HR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.01–1.50) or <0.7 mmol/L (HR = 1.39; 95% CI: 0.83–2.32) [20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The authors concluded that serum iron levels had no effect on the risk of lung cancer. Song et al found no significant association between serum magnesium levels and lung cancer risk when pooled 11 suitable papers [49]. However, Zhang et al performed a meta-analysis using 33 articles to explore the association between serum copper levels and the risk of lung cancer [8].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…86 A recent large cohort study negated that idea and suggested a 21% increased risk for lung cancer in participants with the largest intake of magnesium. 82 Along the same lines, 1 meta-analysis failed to find a protective association 87 (Table 3). To date, no meta-analyses exist on dietary magnesium intake and lung cancer.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…34 As for magnesium, early studies have reported a positive relationship with the risk of lung cancer with a borderline trend for increased risk. Pooled results from 1 meta-analysis by Song et al 87 suggested that serum level of magnesium was not significantly lower in patients with lung cancer compared to healthy patients (summary standardized mean difference, 0.193). After subgroup analysis, the association remained unchanged.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%