ArticleInternational journal of cancer2021
Genital powder use and risk of uterine cancer: A pooled analysis of prospective studies.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Decoding the Link Between Talcum Powder and Ovarian Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Intimate Care Products and Incidence of Hormone-Related Cancers: A Quantitative Bias Analysis.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
- Use of personal care product mixtures and incident hormone-sensitive cancers in the Sister Study: A U.S.-wide prospective cohort.Environment international · 2024Article
- Talc, body powder, and ovarian cancer: A summary of the epidemiologic evidence.Gynecologic oncology · 2021Review
- The association between douching, genital talc use, and the risk of prevalent and incident cervical cancer.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
When powder is applied to the genital area, it has the potential to reach internal reproductive organs and promote carcinogenesis by irritating and inflaming exposed tissues. Although many studies have considered the association between genital powder use and ovarian cancer risk, the relationship between genital powder use and uterine cancer is less well-studied. We pooled data from four large, prospective cohorts (the Nurses' Health Study, the Nurses' Health Study II, the Sister Study and the Women's Health Initiative - Observational Study). We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for prespecified confounders. In total, 209 185 women were included, with 37% reporting ever genital powder use. Over a mean 14.5 years of follow-up, 3272 invasive uterine cancers were diagnosed. There was no overall association between ever genital powder use and uterine cancer (HR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94-1.09), with little difference observed for frequent (≥1 times/week) vs never use (HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; P-for-trend = .46). Long-term use (>20 years; HR = 1.12, 95% CI: 0.96-1.31; P-for-trend = 0.14) was associated with a small, but not statistically significant, increase in risk, compared to never use. There were not clear differences by uterine cancer histologic subtypes or across strata of relevant covariates, including race/ethnicity, follow-up time, menopausal status and body mass index. The results of this large, pooled analysis do not support a relationship between the use of genital powder and uterine cancer, although the positive associations observed for long-term use may merit further consideration.
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.