Relationship of religion with suicidal ideation, suicide plan, suicide attempt, and suicide death: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a significant public health problem and one of the leading causes of death worldwide. The effect of religion on suicidal behaviors (i.e., ideation, plan, attempt, and death) is an important issue worthy of consideration. METHODS: Major electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus, were searched for the articles published until 26 April 2021. Reference lists were also screened. Observational studies addressing the associations between religion and suicidal behaviors were also examined. Between-study heterogeneity was investigated using the χ2, τ2, and I2 statistics. The probability of publication bias was explored using the Begg and Egger tests, as well as trim-and-fill analysis. The effect size was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Out of 11 389 identified studies, 63 articles were eligible, involving 8,053,697 participants. There was an inverse association between religion and suicidal ideation OR  =  0.83 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.88; P < 0.001), suicidal plan OR  =  0.93 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.04; P =  0.200), suicide attempt OR  =  0.84 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.89; P < 0.001), and completed suicide OR  =  0.31 (95% CI: 0.14, 0.72; P =  0.006). There was a no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis support the notion that religion can play a protective role against suicidal behaviors. Nonetheless, the effect of religion on suicidal behaviors varies across countries with different religions and cultures. Although this association does not necessarily imply causation, an awareness of the relationship between religion and suicide risk can be of great help in suicide prevention policies and programs.

Factors for the Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND: This report provided the effect of 15 preventable factors on the risk of breast cancer incidence. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A detailed research was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases in January 2020. Reference lists were also screened. Prospective cohort studies addressing the associations between breast cancer and 15 factors were analyzed. Between-study heterogeneity was investigated using the χ2, τ2, and I2 statistics. The probability of publication bias was explored using the Begg and Egger tests and trim-and-fill analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Based on the results, out of 147,083 identified studies, 197 were eligible, including 19,413,702 participants. The RRs (95% CI) of factors associated with breast cancer were as follows: cigarette smoking 1.07 (1.05, 1.09); alcohol drinking 1.10 (1.07, 1.12); sufficient physical activity 0.90 (0.86, 0.95); overweight/obesity in premenopausal 0.92 (0.82, 1.03) and postmenopausal 1.18 (1.13, 1.24); nulliparity 1.16 (1.03, 1.31); late pregnancy 1.37 (1.25, 1.50); breastfeeding 0.87 (0.81, 0.93); ever using oral contraceptive 1.00 (0.96, 1.05); ever using estrogen 1.13 (1.04, 1.23); ever using progesterone 1.02 (0.84, 1.24); ever using estrogen/progesterone 1.60 (1.42, 1.80); ever taking hormone replacement therapy 1.26 (1.20, 1.32); red meat consumption 1.05 (1.00, 1.11); fruit/vegetable consumption 0.87 (0.83, 0.90); and history of radiation therapy, based on single study 1.31 (0.87, 1.98). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provided a clear picture of several factors associated with the development of breast cancer. Moreover, the useful information in this study may be utilized for ranking and prioritizing preventable risk factors to implement effective prevention programs.

Impact of Filter on the Estimation of Quantitative Mixture Risk Caused by Some Chemical Constituents Generated from Popular Cigarette Brands in Iran.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of filter on the eventual carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks caused by the main toxic constituents of popular cigarette brands in Iran. METHODS: At this laboratory study, the concentration of benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic, and cadmium in the mainstream smoke of 11 popular cigarette brands in Iran, on the without and with-filter modes was determined based on an established method. The hazard quotient (HQ), incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR), and mixture quantitative risk assessments (QRAs) were performed based on the QRA method recommended by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). FINDINGS: The mean of HQ due to benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic, and cadmium in without-filter cigarette smoke was from 3.96 to 3505. The findings indicated that the HQs related to benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic, and cadmium in cigarette smoke were decreased with filter by 48.3%, 25.3%, 37.6%, and 49.1%, respectively. The filter of cigarette decreased ILCR of benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic, and cadmium in cigarette smoke by 53.02%, 25.31%, 37.70%, and 61.01%, respectively. The mixture of non-carcinogenic and carcinogenic estimated risks due to inhalation of studied cigarettes smoke was very high and unacceptable. CONCLUSION: The cigarette filter plays an essential role in reducing inhalation exposure to hazardous compounds in mainstream cigarette smoke; nevertheless, the average of overall mixture HQs and ILCRs estimated caused by studied compounds was higher than the acceptable value. It is recommended that future empirical studies investigate the impact of the type of fiber used in cigarette filter on reducing carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks caused by cigarette smoke.

Risk factors for stomach cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This report provides information on 14 behavioral and nutritional factors that can be addressed in stomach cancer prevention programs. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through December 2018. Reference lists were also screened. Observational studies addressing the associations between stomach cancer and behavioral factors were analyzed. Between-study heterogeneity was investigated using the χ2, τ2, and I2 statistics. The likelihood of publication bias was explored using the Begg and Egger tests and trim-and-fill analysis. Effect sizes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Of 52,916 identified studies, 232 (including 33,831,063 participants) were eligible. The OR (95% CI) of factors associated with stomach cancer were as follows: Helicobacter pylori infection, 2.56 (95% CI, 2.18 to 3.00); current smoking, 1.61 (95% CI, 1.49 to 1.75); former smoking 1.43 (95% CI, 1.29 to 1.59); current drinking, 1.19 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.29); former drinking, 1.73 (95% CI, 1.17 to 2.56); overweight/obesity, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.08); sufficient physical activity, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.02); consumption of fruits ≥3 times/wk, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.63); consumption of vegetables ≥3 times/wk, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79); eating pickled vegetables, 1.28 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.51); drinking black tea, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.20); drinking green tea, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.97); drinking coffee, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.11); eating fish ≥1 time/wk 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.03); eating red meat ≥4 times/wk 1.31 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.96), and high salt intake 3.78 (95% CI, 1.74 to 5.44) and 1.34 (95% CI, 0.88 to 2.03), based on two different studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provided a clear picture of the behavioral and nutritional factors associated with the development of stomach cancer. These results may be utilized for ranking and prioritizing preventable risk factors to implement effective prevention programs.