ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2008
Occupational risk factors for endometrial cancer among textile workers in Shanghai, China.
Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk of Gynecological and Breast Cancers in Workers Exposed to Diesel Exhaust: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Of Cohort Studies.La Medicina del lavoro · 2024Pooled it
- Age at menarche and endometrial cancer risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.Scientific reports · 2015Pooled it
- Review
- Prognostic Value of Quantitative Perfusion Parameters by Enhanced Ultrasound in Endometrial Cancer.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Article
- Cancer Progress and Priorities: Uterine Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018Article
- Textile industry and occupational cancer.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2016Review
- Reproductive factors and risk of lung cancer in female textile workers in Shanghai, China.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2013Article
- Cancer care inequity for women in resource-poor countries.Reviews in obstetrics & gynecology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA case-cohort study was conducted to investigate associations between occupational exposures and endometrial cancer nested within a large cohort of textile workers in Shanghai, China.
methodsThe study included 176 incident endometrial cancer cases diagnosed from 1989 to 1998 and a randomly-selected age-stratified reference subcohort (n = 3,061). Study subjects' complete work histories were linked to a job-exposure matrix developed specifically for the textile industry to assess occupational exposures. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Cox proportional hazards modeling adapted for the case-cohort design, adjusting for age at menarche and a composite variable of gravidity and parity.
resultsAn increased risk of endometrial cancer was detected among women who had worked for > or =10 years in silk production (HR = 3.8, 95% CI 1.2-11.8) and had exposure to silk dust (HR = 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.4). Albeit with few exposed women (two cases and eight subcohort women), there was a 7.4-fold increased risk associated with > or =10 years of silica dust exposure (95% CI 1.4-39.7).
conclusionsThe findings suggest that some textile industry exposures might play a role in endometrial carcinoma and should be further replicated in other occupational settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.