Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28770538›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2017

Night Shift Work and Risk of Breast Cancer.

Johnni Hansen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.2field-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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Johnni HansenDanish Cancer Society Research Center, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. johnni@cancer.dk.
Danish Cancer Society · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewNight work is increasingly common and a necessity in certain sectors of the modern 24-h society. The embedded exposure to light-at-night, which suppresses the nocturnal hormone melatonin with oncostatic properties and circadian disruption, i.e., misalignment between internal and external night and between cells and organs, are suggested as main mechanisms involved in carcinogenesis. In 2007, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified shift work that involves circadian disruption as probably carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence from eight epidemiologic studies on breast cancer, in addition to sufficient evidence from animal experiments. The aim of this review is a critical update of the IARC evaluation, including subsequent and the most recent epidemiologic evidence on breast cancer risk after night work. RECENT

findingsAfter 2007, in total nine new case-control studies, one case-cohort study, and eight cohort studies are published, which triples the number of studies. Further, two previous cohorts have been updated with extended follow-up. The assessment of night shift work is different in all of the 26 existing studies. There is some evidence that high number of consecutive night shifts has impact on the extent of circadian disruption, and thereby increased breast cancer risk, but this information is missing in almost all cohort studies. This in combination with short-term follow-up of aging cohorts may explain why some cohort studies may have null findings. The more recent case-control studies have contributed interesting results concerning breast cancer subtypes in relation to both menopausal status and different hormonal subtypes. The large differences in definitions of both exposure and outcome may contribute to the observed heterogeneity of results from studies of night work and breast cancer, which overall points in the direction of an increased breast cancer risk, in particular after over 20 years of night shifts. Overall, there is a tendency of increased risk of breast cancer either after over 20 years of night shift or after shorter periods with many consecutive shifts. More epidemiologic research using standardized definitions of night work metrics and breast cancer subtypes as well as other cancers is needed in order to improve the epidemiologic evidence in combination with animal models of night work. Also, evidence-based preventive interventions are needed.

Indexed as

Shift Work ScheduleWork Schedule ToleranceBreast NeoplasmsCircadian RhythmFemaleHumansRisk FactorsBreast cancerCircadian disruptionLight-at-nightMelatoninShift work

Identifiers

PMID28770538
OpenAlexW2741218048

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.