ReviewEJC paediatric oncology2024
Environmental risk factors of Wilms tumour: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in EJC paediatric oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk factors of neuroblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Incidence patterns and temporal trends of childhood cancer in Germany, 1980-2019: Forty years of childhood cancer registration in Germany.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Review
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
Abstract
Wilms tumour (WT) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in children. Elucidating modifiable risk factors is crucial in identifying venues for primary prevention of the disease. This study aimed to review literature and synthesize environmental risk factors for WT. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Studies were included if they were case-control or cohort studies of children under the age of 20 years at diagnosis and reported Relative Risks (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled effect sizes (ES) and 95 % CIs for risk factors associated with WT were estimated using random-effects models. We included 58 eligible studies from Asia, Europe, Latin and North America, and Oceania totalling approximately10000 cases of WT diagnosed between 1953 and 2019. We confirmed an association between high birthweight ((>4000 g) ES 1.54, CI 1.20-1.97) and WT. Similarly, consistent associations were suggested for Caesarean section (ES 1.23, CI 1.07-1.42), gestational age <37 weeks (ES 1.45, CI 1.21-1.74), and large-for-gestational age (ES 1.52, CI 1.09-2.12). Parental occupational exposure to pesticides during preconception / pregnancy also showed increased risks of WT (maternal ES 1.28, CI 1.02-1.60, paternal ES 1.48, CI 0.98-2.24). There were inverse associations for breastfeeding (ever breastfed = ES 0.71, CI 0.56-0.89; < 6 months ES 0.67, CI 0.49-0.91; and ≥6 months ES 0.75, CI 0.59-0.97), and maternal intake of vitamins (unspecified) and folic acid during pregnancy (ES 0.78, CI 0.69-0.89). Among factors showing no associations were low birthweight (<2500 g), small-for-gestational age, assisted reproductive technology, parental age, and smoking or alcohol consumption during preconception / pregnancy, paternal occupational extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) exposures, and maternal X-ray exposure during pregnancy. Our findings suggest that modifiable risk factors of WT are parental occupational exposure to pesticides, breastfeeding (beneficial), and intake of folic acid during preconception / pregnancy (beneficial), but all associations were rather modest in strength.
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.