Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22412354›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2012

Injectable and oral contraceptive use and cancers of the breast, cervix, ovary, and endometrium in black South African women: case-control study.

Margaret Urban, Emily Banks, Sam Egger, Karen Canfell, Dianne O'Connell, Valerie Beral, Freddy Sitas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 134 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Margaret UrbanNHLS/MRC Cancer Epidemiology Research Group, National Health Laboratory Services, Johannesburg, South Africa. margaret.urban@nhls.ac.za
Emily Banks
Sam Egger
Karen Canfell
Dianne O'Connell
Valerie Beral
Freddy Sitas
Cancer Council Australia · AUAustralian National University · AUCancer Council NSW · AUNational Health Laboratory Service · ZAUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOral contraceptives are known to influence the risk of cancers of the female reproductive system. Evidence regarding the relationship between injectable contraceptives and these cancers is limited, especially in black South Africans, among whom injectable contraceptives are used more commonly than oral contraceptives. METHODS AND

findingsWe analysed data from a South African hospital-based case-control study of black females aged 18-79 y, comparing self-reported contraceptive use in patients with breast (n = 1,664), cervical (n = 2,182), ovarian (n = 182), and endometrial (n = 182) cancer, with self-reported contraceptive use in 1,492 control patients diagnosed with cancers with no known relationship to hormonal contraceptive use. We adjusted for potential confounding factors, including age, calendar year of diagnosis, education, smoking, alcohol, parity/age at first birth, and number of sexual partners. Among controls, 26% had used injectable and 20% had used oral contraceptives. For current and more recent users versus never users of oral or injectable contraceptives, the odds ratios (ORs) for breast cancer were significantly increased in users of oral and/or injectable contraceptives (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.28-2.16, p<0.001) and separately among those exclusively using oral (1.57, 1.03-2.40, p = 0.04) and exclusively using injectable (OR 1.83, 1.31-2.55, p<0.001) contraceptives; corresponding ORs for cervical cancer were 1.38 (1.08-1.77, p = 0.01), 1.01 (0.66-1.56, p = 0.96), and 1.58 (1.16-2.15, p = 0.004). There was no significant increase in breast or cervical cancer risk among women ceasing hormonal contraceptive use ≥10 y previously (p = 0.3 and p = 0.9, respectively). For durations of use ≥5 y versus never use, the ORs of ovarian cancer were 0.60 (0.36-0.99, p = 0.04) for oral and/or injectable contraceptive use and 0.07 (0.01-0.49, p = 0.008) for injectable use exclusively; corresponding ORs for endometrial cancer were 0.44 (0.22-0.86, p = 0.02) and 0.36 (0.11-1.26, p = 0.1).

conclusionsIn this study, use of oral and of injectable hormonal contraceptives was associated with a transiently increased risk of breast and cervical cancer and, for long durations of use, with a reduced risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. The observed effects of injectable and of oral contraceptives on cancer risk in this study did not appear to differ substantially.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBlack PeopleBreast NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesContraceptive AgentsContraceptives, OralEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsSouth AfricaUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung AdultContraceptive AgentsContraceptives, Oral

Identifiers

PMID22412354
PMCPMC3295825
OpenAlexW2092253588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.