ArticleCancer medicine2024
Leisure time television watching, computer use and risks of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer: A Mendelian randomisation analysis.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sedentary behaviour and cancer risk: a World Cancer Research Fund International Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) systematic literature review and meta-analysis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Genetically predicted KIR2DS4 mediate the association between gut microbe K10 and osteoporosis fractures: A mediation Mendelian randomization study.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Article
- Leisure time television watching, computer use and risks of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer: A Mendelian randomisation analysis.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSedentary behaviours have been associated with increased risks of some common cancers in epidemiological studies; however, it is unclear if these associations are causal.
methodsWe used univariable and multivariable two-sample Mendelian randomisation (MR) to examine potential causal relationships between sedentary behaviours and risks of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Genetic variants associated with self-reported leisure television watching and computer use were identified from a recent genome-wide association study (GWAS). Data related to cancer risk were obtained from cancer GWAS consortia. A series of sensitivity analyses were applied to examine the robustness of the results to the presence of confounding.
resultsA 1-standard deviation (SD: 1.5 h/day) increment in hours of television watching increased risk of breast cancer (OR per 1-SD: 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.26) and colorectal cancer (OR per 1-SD: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16-1.49) while there was little evidence of an association for prostate cancer risk (OR per 1-SD: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84-1.06). After adjusting for years of education, the effect estimates for television watching were attenuated (breast cancer, OR per 1-SD: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.92-1.27; colorectal cancer, OR per 1-SD: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.31). Post hoc analyses showed that years of education might have a possible confounding and mediating role in the association between television watching with breast and colorectal cancer. Consistent results were observed for each cancer site according to sex (colorectal cancer), anatomical subsites and cancer subtypes. There was little evidence of associations between genetically predicted computer use and cancer risk.
conclusionsOur univariable analysis identified some positive associations between hours of television watching and risks of breast and colorectal cancer. However, further adjustment for additional lifestyle factors especially years of education attenuated these results. Future studies using objective measures of exposure can provide new insights into the possible role of sedentary behaviour in cancer development.
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.