SynthesisCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Talc Use and Risk of Cancer: An Umbrella Review and Overlapped Analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis umbrella review aimed to systematically synthesize and critically appraise the available evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the association between talc exposure and cancer risk in humans.
methodsThis umbrella review was conducted in accordance with the PRIOR guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos was performed up to October 2024 without language or date restrictions. Eligible studies were systematic reviews evaluating any type of talc exposure in humans. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently, and risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
resultsNine systematic reviews were included, eight combining cohort and case-control studies and one restricted to cohort studies. Cosmetic talc exposure was the most frequently investigated, with most reviews focused on ovarian cancer. Moderate overlap of study populations (9.2%) was identified, primarily related to Boon et al. Based on AMSTAR-2, confidence in the evidence was moderate in one review and critically low in seven, with frequent methodological shortcomings such as lack of protocol registration and unclear study exclusions. For occupational exposure, elevated risks were observed for overall cancer (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.03-1.42) and colorectal cancer (SIR 1.59; 95% CI 1.07-2.26), while no increased risk was found for other cancer types. Four of five systematic reviews evaluating cosmetic talc exposure and ovarian cancer reported a statistically significant association with increased ovarian cancer risk, whereas one review found no statistically significant association. However, confidence in the results of the reviews included was predominantly low or critically low, reflecting important methodological limitations, including concerns regarding risk-of-bias assessment and reporting. Overall, the evidence supporting an association between cosmetic talc exposure and ovarian cancer was of limited confidence.
conclusionThere is limited evidence from systematic reviews regarding the association of exposure to cosmetic talc with an increased risk of developing ovarian cancer. Therefore, the results of the systematic reviews should be regarded as suggestive, rather than definitive, and further studies are required to demonstrate a causal relationship.
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.