Cited by 482Circadian rhythm and melatoninSleep and Work-Related FatigueCancer Risks and Factors

Night work and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Megdal, Sarah P., Kroenke, Candyce H., Laden, Francine, Pukkala, Eero, Schernhammer, Eva S.·2005·European Journal of Cancer

Abstract

The association between occupations that involve night shift work (a surrogate for exposure to light at night with subsequent melatonin suppression) and breast cancer risk is uncertain. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to assess the effects of night work on breast cancer risk. Data sources were MEDLINE from January 1960 to January 2005, experts in the field, bibliographies, and abstracts. Search terms included night work terms, flight personnel terms, cancer terms, and risk terms. Independent data extraction by two authors using standardised forms was performed. The method of DerSimonian and Laird was used to derive combined estimates and Egger's; and Begg and Mazumdar's tests for publication bias were conducted. Based on 13 studies, including seven studies of airline cabin crew and six studies of other night shift workers, the aggregate estimate for all studies combined was 1.48 (95% CI, 1.36-1.61), with a similar significant elevation of breast cancer risk among female airline cabin crew (standardised incidence ratio (SIR), 1.44; 95% CI, 1.26-1.65), and female night workers (relative risk (RR), 1.51; 95% CI, 1.36-1.68) separately. We found some evidence suggesting confounding due to incomplete adjustment for breast cancer risk factors, with smaller effects in the studies that more completely adjusted for reproductive history and other confounding factors. Egger's and Begg and Mazumdar's tests for publication bias showed no significant asymmetry (P>0.05). Studies on night shift work and breast cancer risk collectively show an increased breast cancer risk among women. Publication bias is unlikely to have influenced the results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.05.010

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Megdal, S. P., Kroenke, C. H., Laden, F., Pukkala, E., & Schernhammer, E. S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Finnish Cancer Registry (FI)
Corresponding author
Schernhammer, Eva S.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-09
Volume
41
Issue
13
Pages
2023-2032
ISSN
0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030789651
Cited by
482
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 39
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
Keywords
night shift work, breast cancer risk, light at night, melatonin suppression, flight attendants, aircrew, occupational exposure, women
MeSH terms
Aircraft, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Occupational Diseases, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Work Schedule Tolerance, Cohort Studies

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