ReviewCancers2021
Long-Term Nightshift Work and Breast Cancer Risk: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Special Attention to Menopausal Status and to Recent Nightshift Work.
Review in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nightshift work and risk of breast and prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2012-2023.Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The multifaceted impact of circadian disruption on cancer risk: a systematic review of insights and economic implications.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2025Review
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review discusses long-term NSW and female BC risk, with special attention to differences between pre- and postmenopausal BC, to test the association with recent NSW. The review follows PRISMA guidelines (Prospero registry: CRD42018102515). We searched PubMed, Embase, and WOS for case-control, nested case-control, and cohort studies addressing long-term NSW (≥15 years) as risk exposure and female BC as outcome until 31 December 2020. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Eighteen studies were finally included (eight cohorts; five nested case-control; five case-control). We performed meta-analyses on long-term NSW and BC risk; overall and by menopausal status; a subanalysis on recent long-term NSW, based on studies involving predominantly women below retirement age; and a dose-response meta-analysis on NSW duration. The pooled estimate for long-term NSW and BC was 1.13 (95%CI = 1.01-1.27; 18 studies, I
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.