SynthesisMedicine2019
Effect of age at first use of oral contraceptives on breast cancer risk: An updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for breast cancer: an umbrella review of observational cohort studies and causal relationship analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Ethnic Heterogeneity in Reproductive Risk Factors for Breast Cancer, With a Focus on Asian Populations: A Meta-analysis.Journal of cancer prevention · 2026Article
- Predicting radiological regression in benign breast hyperplasia: the prolactin-to-estradiol ratio as a prognostic biomarker.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Risk Factors and Preventive Measures for Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Review
- Review
- Observational
- Review of the literature on combined oral contraceptives and cancer.Ecancermedicalscience · 2022Review
- Cancer Progress and Priorities: Breast Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Review
- Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Risk of Breast Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the relationship between the age at first use of oral contraceptives (OC) and breast cancer (BC) risk.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and related reviews published through June 28, 2018, and used summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the cancer risks, and fixed-effects dose-response meta-analysis to assess potential linear and non-linear dose-response relationships.
resultsWe included 10 studies, with 8585 BC cases among 686,305 participants. The pooled RR for BC was 1.24 (95% CI: 1.10-1.41), with moderate heterogeneities (I = 66.5%, P < .001). No significant publication bias was found (P = .584 for Begg test, P = .597 for Egger test). A linear dose-response relationship between the age at first OC use and BC risk was detected (P = .518 for non-linearity). Subgroup analyses were restricted to studies done by BC subtypes, region, sample size, follow-up time and study quality. Inconsistent consequences with no statistical significance were explored when limited to studies from Western countries, study quality <7, sample size <10,000, follow-up time <5 years, and BC subtypes defined by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2) expression status in tumor tissue. Sensitivity analyses indicated that our results were stable and reliable after removing each study in turn and omitting studies of adjusted unreported variables.
conclusionA significant linear relationship between the age at first OC use and BC risk was confirmed. No further consistent differences are noted in multiple aspects of BC subtypes defined by progesterone or ER status.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.