Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jun 29.
Published in final edited form as: Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Oct 13;84:35–48. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.10.011

Table 2.

Meta-analyses of circadian disruption and incident breast cancer risk.

Citation Number of studies Study Types Predictor Variables Overall Odds Ratio (OR) or Relative Risk (RR)
Koppes et al. (2014) 6 4 cohort, 2 case-control NSW 1.48 (95% Cl = 1.36–1.61)
Megdal et al. (2005) 13 5 cohort, 8 case-control NSW 1.20 (95% Cl = 1.08–1.33)
Kamdar et al. (2013) 10 3 cohort, 5 case-control NSW 1.19 (95% Cl = 1.05–1.35)
Wang et al. (2013) 12 1 cohort, 11 case-control NSW 1.05 (95% Cl = 1.01–1.10) for 5-year
NSW
Jia et al. (2013) 15 5 cohort, 10 case-control NSW 1.21 (95% Cl = 1.00–1.47)
Ijaz et al. (2013) 5 5 case-control LAN exposure LAN: 1.17 (95% Cl = 1.11–1.24)
He et al. (2015a) 18 (n = 12 NSW; n = 3 LAN; n = 3 NSW and LAN) NSW: 5 cohort, 7 case-control; LAN: 3 case-control; both: 3 case-control NSW; LAN exposure; both NSW: 1.19 (95% Cl = 1.08–1.32);
LAN: 1.12 (95% Cl = 1.119–1.121)
Yang et al. (2014) 6 6 cohort NSW 1.057 (95% Cl = 1.014–1.102)
Travis et al. (2016) 10 3 prospective, 7 cohort NSW 0.99 (95% Cl = 0.95–1.03)

Note: NSW = night shift work; LAN = light at night.