4.2 Article

Use of electric blankets and association with prevalence of endometrial cancer

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 243-250

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.cej.0000228397.22611.d0

关键词

electric blankets; electromagnetic fields; endometrial cancer; ethnicity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between electric blanket use and prevalence of endometrial cancer for women. Information relating to women enrolled in the Women's Health Initiative Observational Data Set (n = 93 676) used to test the relationship factors associated with endometrial cancer included older age at screening, younger age at last menstrual period, region of domicile (highest prevalence in the South), less than a high school education, lower income, body mass index > 25 kg/m(2), low parity, unopposed use of estrogen, never use of estrogen plus progesterone, past alcohol use, higher percentage of daily calories from fat and any electric blanket use. Following a univariate identification of factors significantly related to endometrial cancer, stepwise logistic regression analysis was performed for those factors with P values of less than 0.001 in the univariate analysis. Using electric blankets was associated with a 15% higher prevalence of endometrial cancer than never having used electric blankets (odds ratio=1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.27). After controlling for variables significantly associated with endometrial cancer, use of electric blankets for 20 years or more was associated with 36% higher prevalence of endometrial cancer (odds ratio=1.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.59). Although we were unable to determine the duration of electric blanket use before diagnosis of endometrial cancer, we found that women using electric blankets for 20 years or more had a significantly higher prevalence. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 16:243-250 (C) 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据