SynthesisBMC women's health2025
Gendered interpretations of the causes of breast cancer: a structured review of migrant studies.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most prevalent cancer in women worldwide. Despite it having an etiology that has fixed, genetic as well as modifiable, environmental risk factors, the narrative around breast cancer prevention emphasizes gendered interpretations of the etiology, such as "reproductive factors cause breast cancer" and women should change their behaviors to reduce their risk. Since migrant studies can distinguish environmental from genetic risk factors, we conducted a structured review of migrant studies and assessed prominent cancer website resources to determine evidence of gender bias between breast and prostate cancer.
methodsWe searched ten online databases for articles with migration as the exposure and breast cancer mortality and/or incidence as the outcome. We also searched using prostate cancer as the outcome to generate a comparison group. We developed rubrics to categorize the studies by study design (single, double, and time dimensional), convergence (a change in incidence or mortality for the migrant population), and concordance (consistency between results and author-attributed etiology). We used chi-square tests to test for differences by cancer type. We web-scraped four notable cancer websites to extract website layouts, risk factor information, and language describing breast cancer etiology and compared it to the content used for prostate cancer.
findingsOf all 140 studies and 220 comparisons, breast (n = 131) outnumbered prostate cancer studies (n = 89; p-value = 0·005). For both cancers, studies that compared all three populations (the non-migrant, origin, and destination population outcomes) or measured length of stay demonstrated that cancer rates converged with migration. Most authors attributed breast cancer etiology to genetic and environmental factors. Yet, the migrant study results were inconsistent with public health messaging; all four websites framed breast cancer as more modifiable than prostate cancer.
conclusionResearch efforts and public health messaging for breast cancer should consider gendered barriers to changing individual-level risk factors and develop more prevention strategies at the health systems level.
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.