14.2.4 Influence of updated studies in the overall results We will do influence-analyses to assess the effect of each updated study on the summary risk estimates8 . References 1. World Cancer Research Fund/ American Institute for Cancer Research. Systematic Literature Review Support Resource. In : Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the – Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.Washington DC: AICR , 2007 2. Cancer Research Fund/ American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.page 305 Washington DC: AICR , 2007 3. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188 4. N Orsini, R Bellocco and S Greenland, Generalized least squares for trend estimation of summarized dose-response data, Stata 6 (2006), pp. 40–57 J 5. Chêne G, Thompson SG. Methods for summarizing the risk associations of variables in epidemiologic studies in a consistent form.Am J Epidemiol. 1996;144(6):610-21. 6. JP Higgins and SG Thompson, Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis, Stat Med 21 (2002), pp. 1539–1558. 7. Bekkering GE et al. How much of the data published in observational studies of the association between diet and colorectal or bladder cancer is usable for meta-analysis? Am J Epidemiol (2008);167(9):1017-26. 8. A Tobias, Assessing the influence of a single in meta-analysis, Stata Tech Bull 47 (1999), pp. 15–17. Continuous update of the WCRF-AICR report on diet and cancer Protocol: Colorectal cancer
14.2.4 Influence of updated studies in the overall results We will do influence-analyses to assess the effect of each updated study on the summary risk estimates8 . References 1. World Cancer Research Fund/ American Institute for Cancer Research. Systematic Literature Review – Support Resource. In : Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.Washington DC: AICR , 2007 2. Cancer Research Fund/ American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective.page 305 Washington DC: AICR , 2007 3. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188 4. N Orsini, R Bellocco and S Greenland, Generalized least squares for trend estimation of summarized dose-response data, Stata J 6 (2006), pp. 40–57 5. Chêne G, Thompson SG. Methods for summarizing the risk associations of variables in epidemiologic studies in a consistent form.Am J Epidemiol. 1996;144(6):610-21. 6. JP Higgins and SG Thompson, Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis, Stat Med 21 (2002), pp. 1539–1558. 7. Bekkering GE et al. How much of the data published in observational studies of the association between diet and colorectal or bladder cancer is usable for meta-analysis? Am J Epidemiol (2008);167(9):1017-26. 8. A Tobias, Assessing the influence of a single in meta-analysis, Stata Tech Bull 47 (1999), pp. 15–17. Continuous update of the WCRF-AICR report on diet and cancer Protocol: Colorectal cancer
CUP_colorectal_SLR_2016_RO.docx