SynthesisBMC women's health2025
Association between physical activity and gynecological cancers: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort 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. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modifiable Lifestyle and Environmental Determinants of Ovarian Cancer Risk: Implications for Primary Prevention.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Exercise-induced myokines and the muscle-tumor axis in obesity-driven gynecological cancers: a narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- The association between activity patterns and malignant neoplasms of female genital organs: a prospective cohort study of UK biobank.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePrevious evidence has unveiled that physical activity (PA) may affect gynecologic cancer (GC). However, existing research findings remain inconsistent. Hence, this comprehensive meta-analysis was to quantify updated evidence on the association between PA and GC risk.
methodsA meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies was conducted to evaluate the association between PA and GC risk, including endometrial cancer (EC), ovarian cancer (OC), and cervical cancer (CC). PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for relevant studies until May 13, 2025. Case-control and cross-sectional studies were excluded to reduce bias and improve causal inference. Study quality was appraised via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The relative risks (RRs) along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled through a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was judged with the Q and I² statistics, and publication bias was tested through funnel plot analysis and Egger's regression test.
results71 risk estimates were summarized in 36 studies. Individuals participating in moderate PA had a lower risk of EC than those in low PA (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.99, P = 0.024), while those in high PA exhibited an even lower EC risk (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.76-0.89, P < 0.001). Besides, moderate PA (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.97-1.10, P = 0.263) and high PA levels (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.92-1.18, P = 0.488) were not associated with OC risk. For CC, only two studies were available; one assessed moderate PA and the other assessed high PA. Moderate PA was not associated with CC risk (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.90-1.25), and high PA also showed no significant association with CC risk (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.18).
conclusionHigh PA is associated with a reduced risk of EC, while no significant association was found for OC. Evidence for CC remains limited and inconsistent. These findings support current PA guidelines for cancer prevention but should be interpreted with caution due to study heterogeneity and limited data. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify these associations, particularly for OC and CC.
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.