2013
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-13-0759-t
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Parity and Kidney Cancer Risk: Evidence from Epidemiologic Studies

Abstract: Background: Observational studies have reported conflicting results between parity and kidney cancer risk. To our knowledge, a comprehensive and quantitative assessment of the association between parity and kidney cancer has not been reported. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of published epidemiologic studies to summarize the evidence of this association.Methods: Relevant published studies of parity and kidney cancer were identified using MEDLINE (PubMed) database through… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
2
22
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Recent meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies suggested that increasing parity and prior hysterectomy, both factors associated with decreased estrogen exposure, thus reducing the risk of breast cancer, increase the risk of RCC [2729]. However, a recent study of second primaries among an international cohort of breast cancer patients found an excess risk of kidney cancer [30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent meta-analyses of epidemiologic studies suggested that increasing parity and prior hysterectomy, both factors associated with decreased estrogen exposure, thus reducing the risk of breast cancer, increase the risk of RCC [2729]. However, a recent study of second primaries among an international cohort of breast cancer patients found an excess risk of kidney cancer [30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, we had statistical power to detect moderate and weak associations. Meanwhile, similar to our previous studies [44,45], we carried out numerous subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore the heterogeneity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If no estimate was presented in a given study, we calculated it and its 95 % CI according to the raw data presented in the article [27,38]. Similar to our previous studies [44,45], we did not assess study quality using a quality score, but investigated whether specific study characteristics, such as study design and adjustment for confounders, which are indicators of study quality, influenced the results in subgroup analyses.…”
Section: Data Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also reviewed the references of all included studies for additional publications. We followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for conducting and reporting meta-analyses [34][36].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%