Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Abnormal bowel movement frequency increases the risk of rectal cancer: evidence from cohort studies with one million people

View through CrossRef
Abstract Previous studies from case–control studies failed to draw reliable conclusions regarding the relationship between bowel movement frequency and the risk of colorectal cancer. To further examine this relationship, we collect the data from cohort studies that make a more accurate estimation. Several online data were searched from inception to February 29, 2020. Ten cohort studies involving 1,038,598 individuals were included in our study. The pooled results indicated that a bowel movement of less than once per day was not associated with the risk of colorectal cancer (relative risk (RR)= 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87–1.16, P = 0.950) compared with that of once per day. Compared with a bowel movement frequency of once per day, a bowel movement of more than once per day was also not related to elevated risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.91–1.19, P = 0.570). The subgroup analyses indicated a low or high bowel movement frequency did not increase the risk of colon cancer (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.80–1.03, P = 0.130). However, an increased frequency of bowel movements increased the risk of rectal cancer (RR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.19–1.52, P < 0.001). The sensitivity analysis still supports the results. No significant publication bias existed. The data from cohort indicated that less bowel movement frequency was not associated with the risk of colorectal cancer. The frequency of bowel movement affects the risk of rectal cancer.
Title: Abnormal bowel movement frequency increases the risk of rectal cancer: evidence from cohort studies with one million people
Description:
Abstract Previous studies from case–control studies failed to draw reliable conclusions regarding the relationship between bowel movement frequency and the risk of colorectal cancer.
To further examine this relationship, we collect the data from cohort studies that make a more accurate estimation.
Several online data were searched from inception to February 29, 2020.
Ten cohort studies involving 1,038,598 individuals were included in our study.
The pooled results indicated that a bowel movement of less than once per day was not associated with the risk of colorectal cancer (relative risk (RR)= 1.
00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.
87–1.
16, P = 0.
950) compared with that of once per day.
Compared with a bowel movement frequency of once per day, a bowel movement of more than once per day was also not related to elevated risk of colorectal cancer (RR = 1.
04, 95% CI: 0.
91–1.
19, P = 0.
570).
The subgroup analyses indicated a low or high bowel movement frequency did not increase the risk of colon cancer (RR = 0.
91, 95% CI: 0.
80–1.
03, P = 0.
130).
However, an increased frequency of bowel movements increased the risk of rectal cancer (RR = 1.
34, 95% CI: 1.
19–1.
52, P < 0.
001).
The sensitivity analysis still supports the results.
No significant publication bias existed.
The data from cohort indicated that less bowel movement frequency was not associated with the risk of colorectal cancer.
The frequency of bowel movement affects the risk of rectal cancer.

Related Results

Sequelae after multimodal treatment of rectal cancer
Sequelae after multimodal treatment of rectal cancer
<p dir="ltr">In recent decades, rectal cancer treatment has shifted from traditional surgical resection to include additional modalities such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy...
Sequelae after multimodal treatment of rectal cancer
Sequelae after multimodal treatment of rectal cancer
<p dir="ltr">In recent decades, rectal cancer treatment has shifted from traditional surgical resection to include additional modalities such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy...
Are Cervical Ribs Indicators of Childhood Cancer? A Narrative Review
Are Cervical Ribs Indicators of Childhood Cancer? A Narrative Review
Abstract A cervical rib (CR), also known as a supernumerary or extra rib, is an additional rib that forms above the first rib, resulting from the overgrowth of the transverse proce...
Microwave Ablation with or Without Chemotherapy in Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Microwave Ablation with or Without Chemotherapy in Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction  Microwave ablation (MWA) has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment for patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, whether it i...
Blunt Chest Trauma and Chylothorax: A Systematic Review
Blunt Chest Trauma and Chylothorax: A Systematic Review
Abstract Introduction: Although traumatic chylothorax is predominantly associated with penetrating injuries, instances following blunt trauma, as a rare and challenging condition, ...
Edoxaban and Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials
Edoxaban and Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract Introduction Cancer patients face a venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk that is up to 50 times higher compared to individuals without cancer. In 2010, direct oral anticoagul...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...

Back to Top