Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29211679›Full record

ArticleThe New England journal of medicine2017

Contemporary Hormonal Contraception and the Risk of Breast Cancer.

Lina S Mørch, Charlotte W Skovlund, Philip C Hannaford, Lisa Iversen, Shona Fielding, Øjvind Lidegaard

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The New England journal of medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 203 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
203citing papers in PubMed, 16 pooled it
52.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

203 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 610 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Combined oral contraceptive pill for primary dysmenorrhoea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Preterm Birth and Breast Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Guideline
  16. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lina S MørchFrom Rigshospitalet, the Juliane Marie Center, Department of Gynecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (L.S.M., C.W.S., Ø.L.); and Academic Primary Care (P.C.H., L.I.) and Medical Statistics (S.F.), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Charlotte W SkovlundFrom Rigshospitalet, the Juliane Marie Center, Department of Gynecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (L.S.M., C.W.S., Ø.L.); and Academic Primary Care (P.C.H., L.I.) and Medical Statistics (S.F.), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Philip C HannafordFrom Rigshospitalet, the Juliane Marie Center, Department of Gynecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (L.S.M., C.W.S., Ø.L.); and Academic Primary Care (P.C.H., L.I.) and Medical Statistics (S.F.), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Lisa IversenFrom Rigshospitalet, the Juliane Marie Center, Department of Gynecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (L.S.M., C.W.S., Ø.L.); and Academic Primary Care (P.C.H., L.I.) and Medical Statistics (S.F.), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Shona FieldingFrom Rigshospitalet, the Juliane Marie Center, Department of Gynecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (L.S.M., C.W.S., Ø.L.); and Academic Primary Care (P.C.H., L.I.) and Medical Statistics (S.F.), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Øjvind LidegaardFrom Rigshospitalet, the Juliane Marie Center, Department of Gynecology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen (L.S.M., C.W.S., Ø.L.); and Academic Primary Care (P.C.H., L.I.) and Medical Statistics (S.F.), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13040Medical Research Council MR/K007017/1Medical Research Council MR/M501633/1Medical Research Council MR/M501633/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about whether contemporary hormonal contraception is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

methodsWe assessed associations between the use of hormonal contraception and the risk of invasive breast cancer in a nationwide prospective cohort study involving all women in Denmark between 15 and 49 years of age who had not had cancer or venous thromboembolism and who had not received treatment for infertility. Nationwide registries provided individually updated information about the use of hormonal contraception, breast-cancer diagnoses, and potential confounders.

resultsAmong 1.8 million women who were followed on average for 10.9 years (a total of 19.6 million person-years), 11,517 cases of breast cancer occurred. As compared with women who had never used hormonal contraception, the relative risk of breast cancer among all current and recent users of hormonal contraception was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 1.26). This risk increased from 1.09 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.23) with less than 1 year of use to 1.38 (95% CI, 1.26 to 1.51) with more than 10 years of use (P=0.002). After discontinuation of hormonal contraception, the risk of breast cancer was still higher among the women who had used hormonal contraceptives for 5 years or more than among women who had not used hormonal contraceptives. Risk estimates associated with current or recent use of various oral combination (estrogen-progestin) contraceptives varied between 1.0 and 1.6. Women who currently or recently used the progestin-only intrauterine system also had a higher risk of breast cancer than women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.33). The overall absolute increase in breast cancers diagnosed among current and recent users of any hormonal contraceptive was 13 (95% CI, 10 to 16) per 100,000 person-years, or approximately 1 extra breast cancer for every 7690 women using hormonal contraception for 1 year.

conclusionsThe risk of breast cancer was higher among women who currently or recently used contemporary hormonal contraceptives than among women who had never used hormonal contraceptives, and this risk increased with longer durations of use; however, absolute increases in risk were small. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation.).

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAge DistributionBreast NeoplasmsContraceptives, Oral, HormonalDenmarkEstradiolEstrogensFemaleHumansIntrauterine Devices, MedicatedProgestinsProspective StudiesRegistriesRiskRisk AssessmentContraceptives, Oral, HormonalEstradiolEstrogensProgestins

Identifiers

PMID29211679
OpenAlexW2775284533

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.