SynthesisBiology of sex differences2025
Sex/gender differences in the association between behavioural factors and cancers: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with quantitative synthesis.
Synthesis in Biology of sex differences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many systematic reviews have summarized evidence on the association between behavioural factors and incident cancers. To date, there has been little synthesis of heterogeneity by sex/gender of this evidence.An umbrella review was conducted of systematic reviews with quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis, meta-regression) examining the exposures of body size; physical activity; wholegrains, vegetables, fruit and beans; "fast foods"; red and processed meat; sugar sweetened drinks; dietary supplements; alcohol; tobacco; and sun exposure with incident non-sex-specific cancers. A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane library from database inception to May 2023 was conducted. We calculated the proportion of systematic reviews that provided quantitative sex/gender findings (e.g., subgroup analyses) and summarized findings narratively. Methodological quality was appraised with the AMSTAR-2 tool.From 13,227 records, 705 full-text systematic reviews were identified as meeting inclusion criteria. Of these, 361 (51.2%) reported quantitative sex/gender findings. The terms "sex" and "gender" were used interchangeably by 36.3% of the 361 systematic reviews and none reported findings for transgender, gender-diverse, or non-binary individuals. Overall, 98.6% (356/361) of systematic reviews were rated "critically low" with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Most of the 361 systematic reviews with quantitative sex/gender findings reported no statistically significant differences by sex/gender.This umbrella review found conflation of sex and gender in systematic reviews of behavioural factors and non-sex-specific cancers and a lack of research among non-cisgender individuals. The existing evidence base is of critically low quality and our findings of no sex/gender-specific trends must be interpreted with caution.
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.