SynthesisBMC cancer2019
Tubal ligation and endometrial Cancer risk: a global systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on tubal ligation and breast cancer risk.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- MYC is Sufficient to Generate Mid-Life High-Grade Serous Ovarian and Uterine Serous Carcinomas in a p53-R270H Mouse Model.Cancer research communications · 2024Article
- MYC is sufficient to generate mid-life high-grade serous ovarian and uterine serous carcinomas in a p53-R270H mouse model.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Incessant ovulation: a review of its importance in predicting cancer risk.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Psycho-sexual influence of sterilization on women's quality of life: a path model.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Article
- Patients' perceptions toward and the driving factors of decision-making for opportunistic bilateral salpingectomy at the time of cesarean section.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies on relationship between tubal ligation and endometrial cancer have led to contradictory findings. In several studies, however, a reduced endometrial cancer risk was suggested following tubal ligation. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between tubal ligation and endometrial cancer risk.
methodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies published up to May 30th, 2018. We compared endometrial cancer risk in women with and without tubal ligation in retrieved studies.
resultsTwo hundred nine studies were initially retrieved from the data bases. After exclusion of duplicates and studies which did not meet inclusion criteria, ten cohort and case-control studies, including 6,773,066 cases, were entered into the quantitative meta-analysis. There was 0.90% agreement between two researchers who searched and retrieved the studies. The summary OR (SOR) was reported using a random effect model. Begg's test suggested that there was no publication bias, but a considerable heterogeneity was observed (I
conclusionsThis study revealed a protective effect of tubal ligation on endometrial cancer risk (approximately 42% lower risk of cancer). It is recommended that studies should be designed to reveal mechanisms of this relationship.
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.