ArticleCancer medicine2016
Occupational exposure to magnetic fields and breast cancer among Canadian men.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Magnetic Fields and Cancer: Epidemiology, Cellular Biology, and Theranostics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Breast cancer and occupational exposures: an integrative review of the literature.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT · 2021Review
- Dietary Isoflavones and Breast Cancer Risk.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Occupational exposure to magnetic fields and breast cancer among Canadian men.Cancer medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational magnetic field (MF) exposure has been suggested as a risk factor for breast cancer in both men and women. Due to the rarity of this disease in men, most epidemiologic studies investigating this relationship have been limited by small sample sizes. Herein, associations of several measures of occupational MF exposure with breast cancer in men were investigated using data from the population-based case-control component of the Canadian National Enhanced Cancer Surveillance System. Lifetime job histories were provided by 115 cases and 570 controls. Average MF exposure of individual jobs was classified into three categories (<0.3, 0.3 to <0.6, or ≥0.6 μT) through expert blinded review of participant's lifetime occupational histories. The impact of highest average and cumulative MF exposure, as well as exposure duration and specific exposure-time windows, on cancer risk was examined using logistic regression. The proportion of cases (25%) with a highest average exposure of ≥0.3 μT was higher than among controls (22%). We found an elevated risk of breast cancer in men who were exposed to ≥0.6 μT (odds ratio [OR] = 1.80, 95% CI = 0.82-3.95) when compared to those with exposures <0.3 μT. Those exposed to occupational MF fields for at least 30 years had a nearly threefold increase in risk of breast cancer (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 0.98-7.82) when compared to those with background levels of exposure. Findings for the other time-related MF variables were inconsistent. Our analysis, in one of the largest case-control studies of breast cancer in men conducted to date, provides limited support for the hypothesis that exposure to MF increases the risk breast cancer in men.
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.