Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
223,238 studies31 sourcesUpdated 21 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Cancer Causes & Control

A literature scanning and prioritization framework to guide future systematic reviews for world cancer research fund international’s global cancer update programme

  • Georgios Markozannes1,2
  • Eirini Pagkalidou1,2
  • Sofia Cividini1
  • Ahmad Jayedi1
  • Sayada Zartasha Kazmi1
  • Margarita Cariolou1
  • Rita Vieira1
  • Sonia Kiss1
  • Katia Balducci1
  • Dagfinn Aune1,3,4
  • Marc J. Gunter1
  • Amanda J. Cross1
2 more authors
  • Doris S. M. Chan1
  • Konstantinos K. Tsilidis1,2
4 affiliations
  1. 1Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, White City Campus, 90 Wood Lane, London, W12 0BZ UK
  2. 2Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Medical School, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece
  3. 3Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
  4. 4Department of Nutrition, Oslo New University College, Oslo, Norway
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Purpose: The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research Third Expert Report (TER) on diet, adiposity, physical activity, and risk of 19 cancers could be enhanced with new data. A framework is needed to prioritize future systematic reviews.

Methods: We searched PubMed (January 2019-February 2024) for meta-analyses, pooled analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, and large (> 100,000 participants) cohort studies. We assessed TER findings using conditional power (CP) and fail-safe number (FSN) statistics. We developed an exposure-based prioritization score (PS) by awarding or subtracting points considering the quantity, statistical significance, direction, and novelty of associations.

Results: We compared 366 meta-analyses, 121 pooled analyses, 19 RCTs, 174 MR studies, and 391 cohort studies covering 151 exposures and 28 cancers with 1,371 TER meta-analyses. Based on CP, nonsignificant TER associations likely to become significant with additional evidence included folate and colorectal, waist circumference and lung, total fat and ovarian, tea and ovarian, and red meat and kidney cancers. The FSN indicated that most significant TER associations are unlikely to change with additional evidence. The median PS was 6 (range: − 15 to 163), with top scores observed for anthropometric measurements (PSheight=40 to PSBMI=163), physical activity (PS=100), sedentary behavior (PS=64), alcohol (PS=52), tea (PS=36), dietary fiber (PS=31), milk/dairy (PS=29), micronutrients (PSretinol=27 to PSiron=38), vitamins (PSB12=22 to PSvitD=91), soy (PS=24), isoflavones (PS=23), and sugar-sweetened beverages (PS=22).

Conclusion: The prioritization framework can help identify impactful systematic reviews to complement TER conclusions and enhance our understanding of emerging research.

Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-026-02268-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related

  1. Imaging for diagnosis, monitoring and outcome prediction in polymyalgia rheumatica: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis informing an international task force
    Sofia Ramiro, Louise Falzon, Christian Dejaco +5
    RMD OpenPeer-reviewedCC BYFull text1 citedGeneral medicineDOAJ
  2. Strengthening antimicrobial stewardship through an international multicentre improvement programme of hospitals serving deprived populations
    Frances Garraghan, Nicola Robinson, Jacqueline Sneddon +9
    JAC-Antimicrobial ResistancePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textInfectious diseasePMC
  3. Trait-Level Rather Than Individual-Level Resolution in Fitness Genomics: A Population-Calibrated Variant Prioritization Framework in a South Asian Cohort
    K. R. UPPALURI, H. J. Challa, K. K. Vempati +4
    medRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textNutritionmedRxiv
  4. An Integrated explainable machine learning framework for pavement condition assessment and maintenance prioritization: A Saudi Arabian case study
    Fawaz Alharbi, Malik Parras Hussan Abbas, Arshad Jamal +3
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineDOAJ
  5. A consortium-driven framework for biomarker prioritization in the HEBE aging study
    Valentina Bollati, Federica Rota, Daniela Lucini +101
    Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textPharmacology & toxicologyCrossref

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{markozannes2026literature,
  title = {{A literature scanning and prioritization framework to guide future systematic reviews for world cancer research fund international’s global cancer update programme}},
  author = {Georgios Markozannes and Eirini Pagkalidou and Sofia Cividini and Ahmad Jayedi and Sayada Zartasha Kazmi and Margarita Cariolou and Rita Vieira and Sonia Kiss and Katia Balducci and Dagfinn Aune and Marc J. Gunter and Amanda J. Cross and Doris S. M. Chan and Konstantinos K. Tsilidis},
  journal = {Cancer Causes \& Control},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.1007/s10552-026-02268-4},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-026-02268-4},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - A literature scanning and prioritization framework to guide future systematic reviews for world cancer research fund international’s global cancer update programme
AU  - Georgios Markozannes
AU  - Eirini Pagkalidou
AU  - Sofia Cividini
AU  - Ahmad Jayedi
AU  - Sayada Zartasha Kazmi
AU  - Margarita Cariolou
AU  - Rita Vieira
AU  - Sonia Kiss
AU  - Katia Balducci
AU  - Dagfinn Aune
AU  - Marc J. Gunter
AU  - Amanda J. Cross
AU  - Doris S. M. Chan
AU  - Konstantinos K. Tsilidis
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/09
JO  - Cancer Causes & Control
DO  - 10.1007/s10552-026-02268-4
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-026-02268-4
AB  - Purpose: The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research Third Expert Report (TER) on diet, adiposity, physical activity, and risk of 19 cancers could be enhanced with new data. A framework is needed to prioritize future systematic reviews.  Methods: We searched PubMed (January 2019-February 2024) for meta-analyses, pooled analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), Mendelian randomization (MR) studies, and large (> 100,000 participants) cohort studies. We assessed TER findings using conditional power (CP) and fail-safe number (FSN) statistics. We developed an exposure-based prioritization score (PS) by awarding or subtracting points considering the quantity, statistical significance, direction, and novelty of associations.  Results: We compared 366 meta-analyses, 121 pooled analyses, 19 RCTs, 174 MR studies, and 391 cohort studies covering 151 exposures and 28 cancers with 1,371 TER meta-analyses. Based on CP, nonsignificant TER associations likely to become significant with additional evidence included folate and colorectal, waist circumference and lung, total fat and ovarian, tea and ovarian, and red meat and kidney cancers. The FSN indicated that most significant TER associations are unlikely to change with additional evidence. The median PS was 6 (range: − 15 to 163), with top scores observed for anthropometric measurements (PSheight=40 to PSBMI=163), physical activity (PS=100), sedentary behavior (PS=64), alcohol (PS=52), tea (PS=36), dietary fiber (PS=31), milk/dairy (PS=29), micronutrients (PSretinol=27 to PSiron=38), vitamins (PSB12=22 to PSvitD=91), soy (PS=24), isoflavones (PS=23), and sugar-sweetened beverages (PS=22).  Conclusion: The prioritization framework can help identify impactful systematic reviews to complement TER conclusions and enhance our understanding of emerging research.  Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-026-02268-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
SN  - 0957-5243
SN  - 1573-7225
ER  -