Background
Methods
Data Sources and Searches
Study Selection
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
Data Synthesis and Analysis
Results
Literature Search
Study Characteristics
Meta-Analysis
Reference | Design | Country | No. of Cases/No. of Non-cases | OR or RR (95% CI) | Fish Consumption Levels | Covariate Adjustment | Methods Used for Assessing Dietary Dntake |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buiatti 1991 | PCC | Italy | 510/1159 | 1.00 (0.80-1.30) | T3 vs. T1 | Age, sex, area, place of residence, migration, socioeconomic status, familiar GC history, Quetelet index, total caloric intake | Interview with a structured questionnaire |
Chen 2002 | PCC | China | 124/449 | 0.58 (0.25-1.40) | Q4 vs. Q1 | Age, sex, energy intake, respondent type, BMI, alcohol use, tobacco use, eduction, family history, vitamin supplement use | Interview with a modified version of the short Health Habits and History Questionnaire |
Cornée 1995 | HCC | France | 92/128 | 0.97 (0.48-1.96) | Q3 vs. Q1 | Age, sex, occupation and total energy intake | Interview with a dietary history questionnaire |
De Stefani 2004 | HCC | Uruguay | 240/960 | 0.73 (0.51-1.03) | T3 vs. T1 | Age, sex, residence, urban/rural status, education, boby mass index, toal energy intake | Interview with a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) |
Fernandez 1999 | HCC | Italy | 745/7990 | 0.80 (0.70-0.90) | Increment 1 serving/wk vs. 1 Serving/wk | Age, sex, area of residence, education, smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index | Interview with a structured questionnaire |
Hamada 2002 | HCC | Brazil | 96/192 | 0.30 (0.10-2.20) | Daily vs. <1 d/week | Beef comsuption, country of birth | Interview with a questionnaire |
Hoshiyama 1992 | PCC | Japan | 216/483 | 0.90 (0.50-1.40) | ≥15/week vs. ≤4/week | Interview with a lifestyle questionnaire | |
Hu 2008 | PCC | Canada | 1182/5039 | 1.3 (1.00-1.60) | Q3vs. Q1 (≥5 oz/week vs. ≤2 oz/week) | Age, province, education, body mass index, sex, alcohol use, pack-year smoking, total of vegetable and fruit intake | Mail with a short version of the Block food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) |
Muñoz 2001 | PCC | France | 302/485 | 0.36 (0.22-0.60) | Q4 vs. Q1 | age, sex, tobacco, alcohol, total calories and SES | Interview with a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) |
Phukan 2006 | HCC | India | 329/665 | 0.18 (0.02-5.30) | ≥2/week vs. never | Level of education, tobacco use, alcohol drinking, | Interview with a structured pretested questionnaire |
Pourfarzi 2009 | PCC | Iran | 210/389 | 0.37 (0.19-0.70) | ≥1/week vs. never or infrequently | Gender, age group, education, family history of GC, citrus fruit, garlic, onion, red meat, fish, diary products, strength and warmth of tea, preference for salt intake and H. pylori | Interviewed with a structured questionnaire |
Rao 2002 | HCC | India | 119/1591 | 1.4 (0.95-2.00) | At least once a week vs. never or once in 2 weeks | Habit, age group and sex | Interview with a questionnaire |
Ito 2003 | HCC | Japan | 508/36490 | 0.60 (0.40-0.90) | ≥ 5 times/week vs. < 1 time/week | Age, year, season at first hospital visit, smoking habit and family history of gastric cancer | Interview with a self-administered questionnaire |
Takezaki 2001 | PCC | China | 187/333 | 1.35 (0.64-2.85) | ≥3 times/week vs. <1 time/month | Age, sex, smoking and drinking | Interview with a structured questionnaire |
Ward 1999 | PCC | Mexico | 220/752 | 2.20 (1.20-3.80) | ≥2.6 times/week vs. <1 time/week | Age, gender, total calories, chilli pepper consumption, added salt, history of peptic ulcer, cigarette smoking and socioeconomic status | Interview with a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire |
Larsson 2006 | cohort | Sweden | 136/61433 | 1.14 (0.75-1.72) | Highest vs. lowest | Age, education, body mass index, intake of total energy, alcohol, fruits and vegetables | Mail with a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) |
Ngoan 2002 | cohort | Japan | 107/12365 | 0.90 (0.30-2.10) | ≥1 time/day vs. ≤2-4 time/month | Sex, age, smoking and other dietary factors | Interview with a self-administered questionnaire |
Category of Studies | No. of Studies | Summary OR or RR (95% CI) | I2
|
---|---|---|---|
All studies | 17 | 0.87 (0.71-1.07) | 73.3% |
Case-control studies | 15 | 0.85 (0.68-1.06) | 76.0% |
Population-based case-control studies | 7 | 0.87 (0.60-1.27) | 82.1% |
Hospital-based case-control studies | 8 | 0.82 (0.63-1.05) | 56.3% |
Population-based versus hospital-based case-control studies | 0.0% | ||
Cohort studies | 2 | 1.11(0.77-1.62) | 0.0% |
Case-control versus cohort studies | 31.4% | ||
Western studies | 9 | 0.92 (0.71-1.19) | 80.1% |
Eastern studies | 8 | 0.80 (0.54-1.16) | 64.3% |
Western versus Eastern studies Mail assessment Interview versus mail assessment | 0.0% | ||
Interview assessment | 15 | 0.82 (0.66-1.02) | 69.7% |
Mail assessment | 2 | 1.26 (1.03-1.55) | 0.0% |
Interview versus mail assessment | 73.3% |
Publication Bias Analysis
Study | Design | Methods | Country | No. of Cases/No. of Non-cases | Information Provided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Campbell, 2008 | PCC | Factor analysis | Canada | 1169/2332 | The loading score of fresh fish is larger than 25 which means fish is a protective factor for gastric cancer |
Nomura, 2003 | PCC | Geometric mean comparison | USA | 230/446 | No remarkable differences in the intake of fish between case and control group |
Kim, 2004 | Cohort | Factor analysis | Japan | 400/41712 | Fish consumption loads more on traditional dietary pattern than healthy dietary pattern in male and female respectively. healthy pattern decreased the risk of gastric cancer among females, while the traditional pattern increased the risk in both genders |