Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oral contraceptives and breast cancer: Final report of an epidemiological study

Open access
Vessey, M, Baron, J, Doll, R, McPherson, K, Yeates, D·1983·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

During 1968-1980, 1176 women aged 16-50 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer and a like number of matched controls were interviewed at 9 teaching hospitals in London and Oxford and asked about their use of oral contraceptives. The results were reassuring. A few statistically significant differences in oral contraceptive use were found between the breast cancer and control groups, but the data were subdivided in many ways so that some "significant" differences would have been expected through the play of chance alone. Certainly no patterns of risk emerged which would suggest that any of the associations were causal. It must be stressed, however, that the data are still sparse in some important subcategories--for example, only small numbers of both cases and controls had prolonged oral contraceptive use before their first term pregnancy. For this reason, it is important that information on the possible relationship between pill use and breast cancer should continue to be collected. Women who had never used oral contraceptives presented with appreciably more advanced tumours than those who had been using oral contraceptives during the year before detection of cancer, while past users were in an intermediate position. These differences in staging were reflected in the pattern of survival. Possible explanations for these observations include "surveillance bias" among oral contraceptive users leading to earlier diagnosis and a beneficial biological effect of oral contraceptives on tumour growth and spread. Women with breast cancer reported never having used any method of contraception and heavy cigarette smoking (greater than or equal to 15 per day) significantly less often than controls. We could find no obvious explanation for the former observation, but suspect that the latter reflects the unrepresentative smoking habits of our hospital controls rather than a protective effect of smoking against breast cancer.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/bjc.1983.74

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

Self-check

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

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

Metadata

Authors
Vessey, M., Baron, J., Doll, R., McPherson, K., & Yeates, D.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
1983-04
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
455-462
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2022510757
Cited by
171
References
1
FWCI
8.39
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: Oral contraceptives and breast cancer: Final report of an epidemiological study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1983.74
The paper
Vessey, M., Baron, J., Doll, R., McPherson, K., & Yeates, D. (1983). Oral contraceptives and breast cancer: Final report of an epidemiological study. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1983.74

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.