SynthesisBMC cancer2025
Breast cancer determinants in low- to upper-middle-income countries: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies and an urgent call for implementation science.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMeta-analyses on breast cancer determinants in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), often produce fragmented, context-specific findings. This umbrella review provides a consolidated synthesis to identify consistent risk factors and strengthen the evidence base for guiding targeted public health strategies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we conducted a systematic search for meta-analyses across multiple databases. Study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool. Data were analyzed using STATA version 14, applying a random-effects model to estimate pooled effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. Forest plots were used to visualize determinants. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots and Egger's test, while heterogeneity was evaluated using the I-squared (I²) statistic and Galbraith plots. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess small-study effects.
resultsOut of 1,515 publications reviewed, 35 met the inclusion criteria. Eight determinants of breast cancer showed convincing evidence under the random-effects model: being overweight (POR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.09-1.23), oral contraceptive use (POR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.11-1.27), family history of breast cancer (POR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.84-2.67), age ≥ 40 years (POR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.60-2.05), smoking history (POR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.11-1.34), exposure to air pollution (POR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05), higher fruit and vegetable consumption (POR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71-0.92), and history of night work (POR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.25).
conclusionsThis umbrella review identified eight key breast cancer risk factors. Non-modifiable factors like age ≥ 40 and family history, along with modifiable factors such as overweight, smoking, oral contraceptive use, air pollution, and night shift work, increased the odds of breast cancer. Adequate fruit and vegetable intake was linked to reduced odds, suggesting a protective effect. We recommend that public health strategies promote healthy lifestyles and target high-risk groups through early screening and awareness campaigns, using evidence-based interventions to reduce the breast cancer burden.
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.