Cited by 100Cancer Risks and FactorsOvarian function and disordersOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment

Anthropometric factors and ovarian cancer risk: A systematic review and nonlinear dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies

Open access
Aune, Dagfinn, Navarro Rosenblatt, Deborah A., Chan, Doris Sau Man, Abar, Leila, Vingeliene, Snieguole, Vieira, Ana Rita, Greenwood, Darren C., Norat, Teresa·2015·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

In the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research report from 2007 the evidence relating body fatness to ovarian cancer risk was considered inconclusive, while the evidence supported a probably causal relationship between adult attained height and increased risk. Several additional cohort studies have since been published, and therefore we conducted an updated meta‐analysis of the evidence as part of the Continuous Update Project. We searched PubMed and several other databases up to 20th of August 2014. Summary relative risks (RRs) were calculated using a random effects model. The summary relative risk for a 5‐U increment in BMI was 1.07 (95% CI: 1.03–1.11, I2 = 54%, n = 28 studies). There was evidence of a nonlinear association, pnonlinearity < 0.0001, with risk increasing significantly from BMI∼28 and above. The summary RR per 5 U increase in BMI in early adulthood was 1.12 (95% CI: 1.05–1.20, I2 = 0%, pheterogeneity= 0.54, n = 6), per 5 kg increase in body weight was 1.03 (95% CI: 1.02–1.05, I2 = 0%, n = 4) and per 10 cm increase in waist circumference was 1.06 (95% CI: 1.00–1.12, I2 = 0%, n = 6). No association was found for weight gain, hip circumference or waist‐to‐hip ratio. The summary RR per 10 cm increase in height was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.11–1.21, I2 = 32%, n = 16). In conclusion, greater body fatness as measured by body mass index and weight are positively associated risk of ovarian cancer, and in addition, greater height is associated with increased risk. Further studies are needed to clarify whether abdominal fatness and weight gain is associated with risk.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.29207

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Epidemiologic evidence suggests increased risks of cancer and cancer mortality in persons with obesity and/or diabetes.

    “Epidemiologic evidence suggests increased risks of cancer and cancer mortality in persons with obesity and/or DM.1725–1730”

    From American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update. (2022) · cites this paper as [1725]

    The BMI results and Conclusions (page not supplied) report that greater BMI is associated with increased ovarian cancer risk and link body fatness to other cancers. The paper does not establish increased cancer risk in people with diabetes or a general increase in cancer mortality, so it supports only the obesity-related cancer-risk portion of the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 69 · Cited by 100

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [32]32. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta- analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of obser- vational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.
  2. [48]48. Wolk A, Gridley G, Svensson M, et al. A pro- spective study of obesity and cancer risk (Swe- den). Cancer Causes Control 2001;12:13-21.

Authors
Aune, D., Navarro Rosenblatt, D. A., Chan, D. S. M., Abar, L., Vingeliene, S., Vieira, A. R., Greenwood, D. C., & Norat, T.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics School of Public Health Imperial College London London United Kingdom
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Aune, Dagfinn
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-24
Volume
136
Issue
8
Pages
1888-1898
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W1917788503
Cited by
100
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
World Cancer Research Fund (2007/SP01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Keywords
ovarian cancer, anthropometric factors, body mass index, adiposity, adult height, waist circumference, body weight, weight gain, hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, abdominal fat, cancer risk
MeSH terms
Adipose Tissue, Adolescent, Adult, Anthropometry, Body Composition, Body Weight, Female, Humans, Obesity, Ovarian Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Risk, Risk Factors, Body Mass Index, Case-Control Studies, Waist-Hip Ratio, Waist Circumference, Young Adult

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