Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26770392›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015

Vasectomy and the risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Xiao-Long Zhang, Jia-Jun Yan, Shou-Hua Pan, Jian-Gang Pan, Xiang-Rong Ying, Guan-Fu Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The review of the long-term health risks associated with vasectomy.International journal of impotence research · 2025
    Review
  5. Review of Vasectomy Complications and Safety Concerns.The world journal of men's health · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Xiao-Long ZhangDepartment of Urology, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital of Zhejiang University Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
Jia-Jun YanDepartment of Urology, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital of Zhejiang University Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
Shou-Hua PanDepartment of Urology, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital of Zhejiang University Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
Jian-Gang PanDepartment of Urology, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital of Zhejiang University Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
Xiang-Rong YingDepartment of Urology, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital of Zhejiang University Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
Guan-Fu ZhangDepartment of Urology, Shaoxing People's Hospital, Shaoxing Hospital of Zhejiang University Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe relationship of vasectomy to prostate cancer has great public health significance. However, the results of observational studies were conflicting. To determine whether vasectomy is associated with the risk of prostate cancer, we performed a meta-analysis of cohort studies.

methodsA literature search was carried out using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Libraryl, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) between January 1966 and July 2013. Before meta-analysis, between-study heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using adequate statistical tests. Fixed-effect and random-effect models were used to estimate summary relative risks (RR) and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Potential sources of heterogeneity were detected by meta-regression. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were also performed.

resultsA total of nine cohort studies contributed to the analysis. There was heterogeneity among the studies but no publication bias. Pooled results indicated that vasectomy was not associated with a significant increase of total prostate cancer risk (RR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.79, 1.46]). When stratified the various studies by geographic location, we found a significant association between vasectomy and increased PCa risk among studies conducted in the USA (RR = 1.54, 95% CI [1.23, 1.93]), however, there was no significant association between vasectomy and PCa risk among studies conducted in non-USA countries (RR = 0.74, 95% CI [0.50, 1.09]). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of the results.

conclusionsIn conclusion, the present meta-analysis of cohort studies suggested that vasectomy was not associated with increased risk of prostate cancer. More in-depth studies are warranted to report more detailed results, including stratified results by age at vasectomy, tumor grade, and tumor stage.

Indexed as

meta-analysisprostate cancerriskVasectomy

Identifiers

PMID26770392
PMCPMC4694292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.