ArticleGlobal epidemiology2025
Talc, ovarian cancer, and recall bias in the sister study.
Article in Global epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
O'Brien et al. [6] reported on the patterns and reliability of self-reported talc use in the Sister Study, a US-based prospective cohort study of women aged 35-74 who had a sister with a history of breast cancer. They found that among certain groups of women, reported use of talc was different at baseline and follow-up. O'Brien et al. [7] evaluated the association between talc and ovarian cancer in this cohort and conducted a quantitative bias analysis (QBA), reporting evidence for differential recall of talc use at baseline and follow-up, which likely increased the magnitude of risk estimates based on recall at follow-up. Additional analyses (e.g., using distributions of recall bias rather than fixed point estimates) may allow for a more complete characterization of the potential impact of recall bias, including a better characterization of the uncertainty around the bias-corrected effect estimates. Future analyses that evaluate recall and other biases more comprehensively, particularly with respect to more fully addressing uncertainty, will contribute to a better understanding of the magnitude of the impact of differential recall on estimated risks.
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.