Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26373341›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2015

Parity and endometrial cancer risk: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies.

Qi-Jun Wu, Yuan-Yuan Li, Chao Tu, Jingjing Zhu, Ke-Qing Qian, Tong-Bao Feng, Changwei Li, Lang Wu, 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 58 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 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. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Qi-Jun WuDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning, China.
Yuan-Yuan LiDepartment of Hematology, the Affiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical College, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, 221000, China.
Chao TuOncology Institute, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou No.2 People's Hospital, Changzhou, Jiangsu, 213003, China.
Jingjing ZhuProgram of Quantitative Methods in Education, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455, USA.
Ke-Qing QianOncology Institute, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou No.2 People's Hospital, Changzhou, Jiangsu, 213003, China.
Tong-Bao FengOncology Institute, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Changzhou No.2 People's Hospital, Changzhou, Jiangsu, 213003, China.
Changwei LiDepartment of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70112, USA.
Lang WuCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, 55905, USA.
Xiao-Xin MaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110004, Liaoning, China.
China Medical University · CNNanjing Medical University · CNAffiliated Hospital of Xuzhou Medical College · CNChangzhou No.2 People's Hospital · CNMayo Clinic · USTulane University · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The association between parity and endometrial cancer risk is inconsistent from observational studies. We aimed to quantitatively assess the relationship by summarizing all relevant epidemiological studies. PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase and Scopus were searched up to February 2015 for eligible case-control studies and prospective studies. Random-effects model was used to pool risk estimations. Ten prospective studies, 35 case-control studies and 1 pooled analysis of 10 cohort and 14 case-control studies including 69681 patients were identified. Pooled analysis revealed that there was a significant inverse association between parity and risk of endometrial cancer (relative risk (RR) for parous versus nulliparous: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.74; I(2) = 76.9%). By evaluating the number of parity, we identified that parity number of 1, 2 or 3 versus nulliparous demonstrated significant negative association (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.64-0.84, I(2) = 88.3%; RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.74, I(2) = 92.1%; and RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.65-0.70, I(2) = 20.0% respectively). The dose-response analysis suggested a nonlinear relationship between the number of parity and endometrial cancer risk. The RR decreased when the number of parity increased. This meta-analysis suggests that parity may be associated with a decreased risk of endometrial cancer. Further studies are warranted to replicate our findings.

Indexed as

ParityEndometrial NeoplasmsFemaleHumansOdds RatioPregnancyRisk

Identifiers

PMID26373341
PMCPMC4642705
OpenAlexW2418295253

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.