Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26360785›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2015

Age at menarche and endometrial cancer risk: a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.

Ting-Ting Gong, Yong-Lai Wang, Xiao-Xin Ma

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

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

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ting-Ting GongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Yong-Lai WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xiao-Xin MaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence between age at menarche and endometrial cancer risk have been controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of prospective studies to analyze the aforementioned association. Relevant studies were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases until the end of June 2015. A random-effects model was used to estimate summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between menarcheal age and endometrial cancer risk. Our meta-analysis included eight prospective studies involving 4553 subjects with endometrial cancer. The summarized RRs of endometrial cancer for menarcheal age were 0.68 (95%CI = 0.58-0.81, I(2) = 41.9%, P = 0.099, n = 8) when comparing women with oldest category of menarcheal age with women with youngest category of menarcheal age. Notably, there was an 4% reduction in risk for per 2 years delay in menarcheal age (summarized RR = 0.96; 95%CI = 0.94-0.98, I(2) = 45.7%, P = 0.101, n = 6). Additionally, significant inverse associations were consistent within all stratified analyses. There was no evidence of publication bias or significant heterogeneity between subgroups detected by meta-regression analyses. Our findings support the hypothesis that late menarcheal age is inversely associated with endometrial cancer risk. Further larger prospective or pooled studies are warranted to fully adjust for potential confounders and distinguish whether the associations differ by histological subtypes of endometrial cancer.

Indexed as

MenarcheDatabases, FactualEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26360785
PMCPMC4566123
OpenAlexW2405066811

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.