ReviewDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2025
Diabetes mellitus and the risk of ovarian cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.
Review in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Propranolol Versus Other Drugs in the Treatment of Infantile Hemangioma.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Diabetes mellitus and the risk of ovarian cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this study is to evaluate the association between diabetes mellitus and the risk of ovarian cancer development through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases from their inception through April 2025, identifying observational studies that provided quantitative risk estimates for the correlation between diabetes mellitus and ovarian cancer. Pooled relative risks and corresponding confidence intervals were determined via random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed based on diabetes subtype, study design, age, geographic region, adjustment status and study quality which was evaluated through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsThe pooled relative risk (RR) was found to be 1.14 (95% CI, 1.02-1.27); indicating a modest though statistically significant association between diabetes mellitus and ovarian cancer development. In total, 43 studies (30 cohort, 13 case-control) contributed 46 effect sizes, and between-study heterogeneity was found to be high (I² = 88.35%). According to subgroup analyses, diabetes subtypes (type 1 RR: 1.46; type 2 RR: 1.12; gestational RR: 1.09), study design or adjustment status did not reach to statistical significance regarding the increase in risk. Furthermore, the Egger's test showed no evidence of publication bias (p = 0.24), alongside sensitivity analyses confirming the robustness of the pooled estimate.
conclusionThe present study, being an updated meta-analysis, implies a modest, statistically significant increase in the risk of ovarian cancer development which is associated with diabetes mellitus; although the overall calculated effect size remains small. While the potential biological mechanisms linking diabetes mellitus to ovarian cancer development are plausible, diabetes mellitus does not appear to be a significant risk factor independently. Future prospective studies that incorporate comprehensive phenotyping, treatment exposure plus molecular tumor characteristics are of most necessity to further elucidate this association and enhance risk stratification.
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.