Oral contraceptives and colorectal cancer risk: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Several studies have suggested an inverse association between use of combined oral contraceptives (OC) and the risk of colorectal cancer and here we present a meta-analysis of published studies. Articles considered were epidemiological studies published as full papers in English up to June 2000 that included quantitative information on OC use. The pooled relative risks (RR) of colorectal cancer for ever OC use from the 8 case-control studies was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.94), and the pooled estimate from the 4 cohort studies was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.72-0.97). The pooled estimate from all studies combined was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.92), without apparent heterogeneity. Duration of use was not associated with a decrease in risk, but there was some indication that the apparent protection was stronger for women who had used OCs more recently (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.71). A better understanding of this potential relation may help informed choice of contraception.

References 46

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 2

• The Regulation of Steroid Action by Sulfation and Desulfation · 2015
  No notice
• Sex Differences in Colorectal Cancer Survival: Population-Based Analysis of 164,996 Colorectal Cancer Patients in Germany · 2013
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.