SynthesisCancer medicine2020
Gender differences in self-reported family history of cancer: A review and secondary data analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gender differences in self-reported family history of cancer: A review and secondary data analysis.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Bridging the implementation gap in hereditary cancer care for prostate cancer: a narrative review and Japanese environmental scan.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Validation of self-reported family history of myocardial infarction using nationwide health care data.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Adaptation and pilot implementation of a hereditary cancer risk-assessment tool for primary care.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- The families SHARE project: novel insights on recruiting and engaging Black men in a community-based genomic education program.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Feasibility of an electronic patient-facing cancer family history tool in medically underserved populations.Genetics in medicine open · 2024Article
- Proactive familial cancer risk assessment: a service development study in UK primary care.BJGP open · 2023Article
- Genetic and Nongenetic Components of Stroke Family History: A Population Study of Adopted and Nonadopted Individuals.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Effects of Fecal Occult Blood Immunoassay Screening for Colorectal Cancer-Experience from a Hospital in Central Taiwan.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Expanding Family Health History to Include Family Medication History.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Lifestyle and Health-Related Quality of Life Relationships Concerning Metabolic Disease Phenotypes on the Nutrimdea Online Cohort.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Prevalence and factors associated with visual impairment in middle-aged and older Chinese population.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssessment of family history of cancer (FHC) mostly relies on self-report. Our goal was to find out whether there is a systematic gender difference in self-reported FHC.
methodsWe identified nine population-based studies which provided statistics of FHC in men and women (N
resultsIn the reviewed studies the odds of men reporting a FHC were lower compared with the odds of women with an average OR of 0.84 [0.71; 1.00] across all studies and an OR of 0.75 [0.70; 0.80] for the six studies from the US and Europe. The gender gap was replicated in our own analyses of HINTS and NHIS with an average OR of 0.75 [0.71; 0.79]. In HINTS 5 Cycle 2 men described themselves as less familiar with their FHC and less confident answering questions regarding FHC. They were also less likely to discuss FHC with family members.
conclusionsMen- at least in the US and Europe-were consistently less likely to report FHC compared with women. Future research should investigate how the assessment of FHC can be improved to reduce these differences. Health care professionals should also consider the potential for biased reporting by gender when assessing FHC.
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.