Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40458831›Full record

ArticleGlobal epidemiology2025

Talc, ovarian cancer, and recall bias in the sister study.

Julie E Goodman, Denali Boon, Robyn L Prueitt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Julie E GoodmanGradient, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Denali BoonGradient, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Robyn L PrueittGradient, Seattle, WA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Ovarian cancerQuantitative bias analysisRecall biasTalc

Identifiers

PMID40458831
PMCPMC12127589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.