ReviewCancers2024
Exposure to Light at Night and Risk of Cancer: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Data Synthesis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between circadian rhythm-related behaviors and breast cancer: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Article
- Mitigating Blue-Light Risk in Display-Based Digital Therapeutics: A Practical Framework to Support Clinical Efficacy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Decoding Breast Cancer: Emerging Molecular Biomarkers and Novel Therapeutic Targets for Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Individual interventions to reduce nighttime light exposure in a representative sample of adults aged 18-64 years in Poland.International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health · 2025Article
- Effects of Stage Lighting on Visual Comfort at Summer Festivals: A Study in Portugal.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Circadian Rhythm Disruption in Cancer Survivors: From Oncogenesis to Quality of Life.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging interest surrounds the role of environmental factors, notably exposure to light at night (LAN), as a potential cause of cancer. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and, if possible, meta-analysis of observational studies on LAN and cancer risk of multiple types.
methodsA systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase, spanning from inception to May 2023, was conducted. Studies focusing on the association between LAN exposure and cancer risk in adult populations were included. We used random effects models to calculate pooled risk estimates (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed study quality using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions.
resultsAmong 8492 initially identified studies, 26 met the inclusion criteria (13 were case-control and 13 were cohort studies). These studies were published from 2001 to 2023 and assessed diverse cancer types in North America, Asia, Europe, and Australia. Except for breast cancer, there was a paucity of site-specific cancer studies. In the meta-analysis of 19 breast cancer studies, higher exposure to indoor (summary RR, 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.15) and outdoor (summary RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15) LAN were associated with increased risk. After excluding one low-quality study, the results were unchanged.
conclusionsWe found a positive association between LAN exposure and breast cancer risk in women. However, data are lacking for other cancer types, and further studies are required to better understand the role of LAN on cancer.
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.