SynthesisCancer research and treatment2021
Adherence to Cancer Prevention Guidelines and Endometrial Cancer Risk: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.
Synthesis in Cancer research and treatment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Obesity as a Catalyst for Endometrial Hyperplasia and Cancer Progression: A Narrative Review of Epidemiology, Molecular Pathways, and Prevention.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Expression of EMT-related genes in lymph node metastasis in endometrial cancer: a TCGA-based study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Advances on Prevention and Screening of Gynecologic Tumors: Are We Stepping Forward?Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe evidence of adherence to cancer prevention guidelines and endometrial cancer (EC) risk has been limited and controversial. This study summarizes and quantifies the relationship between adherence to cancer prevention guidelines and EC risk. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe online databases PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for relevant publications up to June 2, 2020. This study had been registered at PROSPERO. The registration number is CRD42020149966. Study quality evaluation was performed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The I2 statistic was used to estimate heterogeneity among studies. Egger's and Begg's tests assessed potential publication bias. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the relationship between adherence to cancer prevention guidelines score was assigned to participants by summarizing individual scores for each lifestyle-related factor. The scores ranged from least healthy (0) to most healthy (20) and the EC risk was calculated using a randomeffects model.
resultsFive prospective studies (four cohort studies and one case‑cohort study) consisted of 4,470 EC cases, where 597,047 participants were included. Four studies had a low bias risk and one study had a high bias risk. Summary EC HR for the highest vs. lowest score of adherence to cancer prevention guidelines was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.40 to 0.73) and had a high heterogeneity (I2=86.1%). For the dose-response analysis, an increment of 1 significantly reduced the risk of EC by 6%. No significant publication bias was detected.
conclusionThis study suggested that adherence to cancer prevention guidelines was negatively related to EC risk.
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.