Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26831296›Full record

ReviewReviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders2015

Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and female cancer: Informing the patients.

Dominik Rachoń

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. FIGO committee opinion: Environmental drivers of gynecologic and reproductive health.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dominik RachońDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Endocrinology, Medical University of Gdańsk, Dębinki 7, 80-211, Gdańsk, Poland. drachon@gumed.edu.pl.
Gdańsk Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast and uterine cancer are the most frequent female gender related neoplasms whose growth is mostly estrogen dependent. Therefore, any EDC exhibiting estrogenic effects may increase the risk of these two malignancies. This review focuses on the potential role of EDCs with estrogenic potential on the risk of breast and uterine neoplasms but also points to the possible role of the exposure to EDCs in the pathogenesis of ovarian and cervical cancer. It also underlines the necessity of informing the public about the presence of EDCs in common consumer products, their detrimental health effects and methods of reducing the exposure risk.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental PollutantsEstrogensFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansOvarian NeoplasmsEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental PollutantsEstrogensBreast cancerCervical cancerEndocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)Female cancerOvarian cancerUterine cancer

Identifiers

PMID26831296
PMCPMC4801991
OpenAlexW2269231667

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.