ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2024
Validity of self-reported night shift work among women with and without breast cancer.
Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Body mass index links night work intensity with higher low-grade systemic inflammation: results from a field study in humans.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2026Article
- Working time traffic light recommendations: development, use, and implementation in the Finnish social and healthcare.Industrial health · 2026Article
- Recall bias in population-based case-control studies of ovarian cancer and genital talcum powder use: potential impact and quantitative bias analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- The positive association between evening or night work schedules and coronary heart disease or angina among U.S. adults: A cross-sectional study.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2025Article
- Advice on better utilization of validation data to adjust odds ratios for differential exposure misclassification (recall bias).Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- Response to Drs. Igor Burstyn and George Luta's letter: Advice on better utilization of validation data to adjust odds ratios for differential exposure misclassification (recall bias).Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- Night shift work and breast cancer risk - 2023 update of epidemiologic evidence.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2025Review
- Role of turnover, downsizing, overtime and night shifts on workplace violence against healthcare workers: a seven-year ecological study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- The independent and interactive effects of changes in overtime and night shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic on burnout among nurses: a longitudinal study.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024Article
- Working hours and cardiovascular disease.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to estimate the validity of self-reported information on ever-night shift work among women with and without breast cancer and illustrate the consequences for breast cancer risk estimates.
methodsDuring 2015-2016, 225 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 1800 matched controls without breast cancer employed within the Danish hospital regions during 2007-2016 participated in a questionnaire-based survey. Their reported night shift work status was linked with objective payroll register day-by-day working hour data from the Danish Working Hour Database and the Danish Cancer Registry. For the breast cancer patients and their matched controls, we estimated sensitivity and specificity for ever-working night shifts using the payroll data as the gold standard. We also used quantitative bias analysis to estimate the impact on relative risk estimates for a hypothetical population.
resultsFor breast cancer patients, we observed a sensitivity of ever-night shifts of 86.2% and a specificity of never-night shifts of 82.6%. For controls, the sensitivity was 80.6% and the specificity 83.7%. Odds ratio for breast cancer in a hypothetical population decreased from 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.21] to 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16) when corrected by the sensitivity and specificity estimates.
conclusionThis study shows that female breast cancer patients had slightly better recall of previous night shift work than controls. Additionally, both breast cancer patients and controls recalled previous never-night shift work with low specificity. The net effect of this misclassification is a small over-estimation of the relative breast cancer risk due to night shift work.
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.