Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28715534›Full record

SynthesisJAMA internal medicine2017

The Association Between Vasectomy and Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bimal Bhindi, Christopher J D Wallis, Madhur Nayan, Ann M Farrell, Landon W Trost, Robert J Hamilton, Girish S Kulkarni, Antonio Finelli, Neil E Fleshner, Stephen A Boorjian and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Epidemiology beyond its limits.Science advances · 2022
    Article
  8. Review of Vasectomy Complications and Safety Concerns.The world journal of men's health · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Epidemiology, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  11. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Prostate Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Bimal BhindiDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Christopher J D WallisDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Madhur NayanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ann M FarrellMayo Clinic Libraries, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Landon W TrostDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Robert J HamiltonDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Girish S KulkarniDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Antonio FinelliDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Neil E FleshnerDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Princess Margaret Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Stephen A BoorjianDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
R Jeffrey KarnesDepartment of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Mayo Clinic · USUniversity Health Network · CAPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Despite 3 decades of study, there remains ongoing debate regarding whether vasectomy is associated with prostate cancer. Objective: To determine if vasectomy is associated with prostate cancer. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for studies indexed from database inception to March 21, 2017, without language restriction. Study Selection: Cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies reporting relative effect estimates for the association between vasectomy and prostate cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators performed study selection independently. Data were pooled separately by study design type using random-effects models. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was any diagnosis of prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes were high-grade, advanced, and fatal prostate cancer. Results: Fifty-three studies (16 cohort studies including 2 563 519 participants, 33 case-control studies including 44 536 participants, and 4 cross-sectional studies including 12 098 221 participants) were included. Of these, 7 cohort studies (44%), 26 case-control studies (79%), and all 4 cross-sectional studies were deemed to have a moderate to high risk of bias. Among studies deemed to have a low risk of bias, a weak association was found among cohort studies (7 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; P < .001; I2 = 9%) and a similar but nonsignificant association was found among case-control studies (6 studies; adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.88-1.29; P = .54; I2 = 37%). Effect estimates were further from the null when studies with a moderate to high risk of bias were included. Associations between vasectomy and high-grade prostate cancer (6 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.89-1.21; P = .67; I2 = 55%), advanced prostate cancer (6 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.98-1.20; P = .11; I2 = 18%), and fatal prostate cancer (5 studies; adjusted rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; P = .68; I2 = 26%) were not significant (all cohort studies). Based on these data, a 0.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-1.2%) absolute increase in lifetime risk of prostate cancer associated with vasectomy and a population-attributable fraction of 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.9%) were calculated. Conclusions and Relevance: This review found no association between vasectomy and high-grade, advanced-stage, or fatal prostate cancer. There was a weak association between vasectomy and any prostate cancer that was closer to the null with increasingly robust study design. This association is unlikely to be causal and should not preclude the use of vasectomy as a long-term contraceptive option.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsEpidemiologic StudiesHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm StagingOdds RatioRisk FactorsSterilization ReversalVasectomy

Identifiers

PMID28715534
PMCPMC5710573
OpenAlexW2735535436

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.