The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effect of estrogen vs. combined estrogen‐progestogen therapy on the risk of colorectal cancer
Open accessAbstract
Studies suggest that estrogen therapy (ET) and combined estrogen‐progestogen therapy (EPT) may have different associations with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, but data are conflicting. Prior meta‐analyses did not distinguish between ET and EPT. We conducted a meta‐analysis to summarize the relative risks (RR) of CRC due to ET versus EPT among peri‐ or postmenopausal women. From a total of 2,661 articles, four randomized controlled trials, eight cohort and eight case‐control studies were included. Variables assessed included study characteristics, duration and recency of menopausal hormone therapy (HT) use, method of assessment of HT use, outcome definition and its ascertainment method. RRs were synthesized by random‐effects models. We found that EPT ever use was associated with a decreased risk of CRC (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.68‐0.81), and so was ET ever use (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69‐0.91). While current use of ET was associated with a significantly reduced risk of CRC (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57‐0.85), former use was not (RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.67‐1.11). Recency did not significantly modify the association between EPT and CRC risk. EPT former use was associated with a lower RR of CRC compared to ET former use (p = 0.008) but no such difference was observed between EPT and ET current use (p = 0.12). Overall, we found consistent evidence supporting the association between EPT and CRC risk reduction, regardless of recency. While literature for the association between ET and CRC risk is heterogeneous, our analyses suggest only current use of ET is associated with a decreased CRC risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The combination of estimates from different experiments
Cochran, W. G. (1954) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/3001666 · Cited by 5,380
Methylation of the oestrogen receptor CpG island links ageing and neoplasia in human colon
Issa, J.-P. J., Ottaviano, Y. L., Celano, P., Hamilton, S. R., Davidson, N. E., & Baylin, S. B. (1994) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng0894-536 · Cited by 1,191
Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods
Greenland, S. (1994) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117248 · Cited by 511
Cited by
Dekker, E., Tanis, P. J., Vleugels, J. L. A., Kasi, P. M., & Wallace, M. B. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)32319-0 · Cited by 4,974
Brenner, H., Kloor, M., & Pox, C. P. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61649-9 · Cited by 2,762
The 2022 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society
(2022) · Menopause · doi:10.1097/gme.0000000000002028 · Cited by 977
Sex- and gender-specific disparities in colorectal cancer risk
Kim, S.-E. (2015) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i17.5167 · Cited by 493
Epidemiology of Colorectal Cancer
Keum, N., & Giovannucci, E. L. (2017) · Pathology and Epidemiology of Cancer · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-35153-7_21 · Cited by 329
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lin, K. J., Cheung, W. Y., Lai, J. Y., & Giovannucci, E. L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-04-25
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 419-430
- ISSN
- 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0215
- OpenAlex
- W2069182895
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effect of estrogen vs. combined estrogen‐progestogen therapy on the risk of colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.26026
- The paper
- Lin, K. J., Cheung, W. Y., Lai, J. Y., & Giovannucci, E. L. (2012). The effect of estrogen vs. combined estrogen‐progestogen therapy on the risk of colorectal cancer. International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.26026
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.