Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41395122›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of women's health2025

Differential Causal Effects of Common Analgesics on Breast Cancer Risk and Survival: Evidence from Mendelian Randomization.

Zhan Peng, Zhuobin Liu, Guangye Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Zhan Peng *Department of Spinal Surgery, Shenzhen Baoan District People's Hospital, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Zhuobin LiuDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Shenzhen Baoan District People's Hospital, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Guangye Wang *Department of Spinal Surgery, Shenzhen Baoan District People's Hospital, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The causal effects of widely used analgesics-paracetamol(acetaminophen), aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), and ibuprofen-on breast cancer risk and survival remain uncertain. This Mendelian randomization (MR) study investigated their causal relationships with breast cancer incidence, mortality, and estrogen receptor (ER)-subtype heterogeneity. Methods: Using two-sample MR, genetic instruments for analgesic use were derived from UK Biobank GWAS (N=457,547). Outcome data included breast cancer incidence (122,977 cases/105,974 controls), ER-subtypes (ER+: 69,501 cases; ER-: 21,468 cases), and survival statistics. Inverse-variance weighted (IVW) analyses were primary, supplemented by MR-Egger, weighted median/mode, and sensitivity analyses (MR-PRESSO, leave-one-out). Bidirectional MR assessed reverse causation. Results: Genetically predicted paracetamol use increased overall breast cancer risk (IVW OR=3.26, 95% CI:1.60-6.63, Conclusion: This MR study links a genetic predisposition to paracetamol use with increased breast cancer risk (especially ER+), and to aspirin use with improved survival. These divergent findings point to drug-specific mechanisms, warranting caution with long-term paracetamol use and further study of aspirin's therapeutic potential. Clinical decisions should balance analgesic benefits against these potential cancer-related outcomes.

Indexed as

aspirinbreast canceribuprofenMendelian randomizationnonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugsparacetamolpharmacoepidemiology

Identifiers

PMID41395122
PMCPMC12701644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.