323:, rather than standard case-control matching, is a concern of Brind who argues that the Melbye study accidentally adjusted out induced abortion from the overall results. As induced abortion has increased along many confounding factors (eg. smoking, late child bearing) within birth-cohorts, Brind believes the zero result after adjustments is a red flag overall ABC risk was removed along with other factors. After Melbye the NCI updated their website to say: "there is no convincing evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and either induced or spontaneous abortion." This in combination with Brind's phone ringing off the hook with anti-abortion supporters facing hard ABC questions, Brind engaged "any representative who would listen" and through pressure of Congressman
359:"control over how their results were interpreted or put to use. As a by-product of this process, they were also provoked into a closer examination of how various kinds of bias operate within their own discipline, and why apparently similar studies may produce dramatically different results," and "how tentative conclusions may become fossilized or reified as citations accumulate." This led to scientific methods being influenced by the ABC narrative, ABC studies being contextualized by breast cancer risk increases, and ultimately incorporated into the intense abortion debate in the United States. Consequently those exploring the abortion issue face significant challenges to clarify its effect, if any, on women's health.
334:(2000) (225/303 ABC cases/controls) done in Washington State found controls were not more reluctant to report induced abortion than women with breast cancer. Their results were that 14.0% of cases and 14.9% controls (an effect of −0.9%) did not accurately report their abortion history. They do note likely underreporting occurring in certain sub-groups of women; such as older women in a Newcomb study reporting abortions prior to legalization, and a predominantly conservative population in the Rookus study.
355:, which he believes is reflected in the removal of 15 studies with positive ABC results for "unscientific reasons"; and including 28 unpublished studies that outnumber the remaining 24 peer reviewed studies. Beral refers to the Lindefors-Harris recall bias study as an explanation for the removal of studies from their meta-analysis and ABC risk found in interview based studies, however Brind notes in 1998 that Lindefors-Harris conceded their conclusion may have been unsound.
92:) generally show little to no increase in breast cancer risk. This has been used as evidence against the ABC hypothesis and pro-choice advocates have claimed it is proof that neither early pregnancy loss nor abortion are risk factors for breast cancer. One of the problems with comparing miscarriage to abortion is hormone levels in early pregnancy, as the ABC hypothesis rests on hormonal influence over breast tissue development. While it is true most miscarriages are not
156:(1982) study found Pike's results "provocative and worrying" so researchers at London and Oxford hospitals tried to verify it, they found no increased risk and their result was even "more compatible with protective effects". Brind notes as only a "handful" of women in the dataset had a recorded abortion before their first full term pregnancy, this resulted in the authors combining spontaneous and induced abortion sub-groups together.
2811:
315:(1,338 ABC cases, no controls used) determined the overall relative risk after statistical adjustment came to 1.00 (0.94–1.06) or no increased breast cancer risk. The study concluded that "induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer." The Melbye study's conclusions have been used by many organizations, such as NCI, ACOG, ACS, RCOG and
225:
study found it "reasonable to assume that virtually no women who truly did not have an abortion would claim to have had one." With the overreporting removed the error margin went from 50% to 16%. Brind believes the remainder may be from the
Swedish fertility registry – where women were interviewed as new mothers – which could have increased underreporting.
556:
observes if report bias were a significant factor in interview-based studies, then: "thousands of other studies in medicine might now be deemed 'worthless.' Every time one had a disease or 'effect' that was caused by a controversial risk factor (i.e., one of the causes), the study might be considered invalid based upon 'recall bias.'"
351:. This meta-analysis of 53 epidemiologic studies did not find evidence of a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer, with a relative risk of 0.93 (0.89 – 0.96). Organizations and media outlets have cited the Beral study as the most comprehensive overview of the ABC evidence. Brind maintains this study is subject to
478:(1996) examined the possibility of response bias by comparing results from two studies on invasive cervical cancer and ovarian cancer. The results argued against significant response bias. However, Rookus (1996) study noted that patients with cervical cancer may report differently than breast cancer patients.
358:
A number of studies indicate an ABC risk and several others a protective effect, individually their small size and possible flaws has not shifted the scientific consensus which determines the best evidence disproves an abortion-breast cancer link. The ABC discussion highlights how scientists can lose
224:
induced abortion studies it concluded there was a 1.5 (1.1 – 2.1) margin of error from recall bias. However, eight women in this error margin "overreported" their abortions, meaning they reported having an abortion that was not recorded, so the researchers concluded it did not happen. The 1994 Daling
219:
occurs when women intentionally "underreport" or deny their abortion history. Women in control groups are less likely to have serious illnesses, and for personal reasons have less motivation to be truthful than those trying to diagnose their problem. If this occurs it artificially creates an ABC risk
207:
outlined wider debates within epidemiology, pointing to recall bias as a explanation for abortion-breast cancer risk findings of questionable statistical importance. There was also questions as to why spontaneous abortion showed no increased risk. With this in mind the
American Medical Association in
246:
editor-in-chief Stuart Donnan, to write an editorial noting, "I believe that if you take a view (as I do), which is often called 'pro-choice', you need at the same time to have a view which might be called 'pro-information' without excessive paternalistic censorship (or interpretation) of the data."
2812:
Reeves G, Kan S, Key T, Tjønneland A, Olsen A, Overvad K, Peeters P, Clavel-Chapelon F, Paoletti X, Berrino F, Krogh V, Palli D, Tumino R, Panico S, Vineis P, Gonzalez C, Ardanaz E, Martinez C, Amiano P, Quiros J, Tormo M, Khaw K, Trichopoulou A, Psaltopoulou T, Kalapothaki V, Nagel G, Chang-Claude
298:
acknowledged the weakness in the
Lindefors-Harris (1991) study, but emphasized that more controls (16/59=27.1%) than case patients (5/24=20.8%) underreported. They concluded that Brind asserting a causal ABC link would be a disservice to the public and epidemiology when "bias has not been ruled out
120:
The first study involving statistics on abortion and breast cancer (ABC) was a broad study in 1957 examining common cancers in Japan which found an ABC association. The researchers were cautious about drawing any conclusions from their unreliable methodologies. During the late 1960s several studies
1294:
as virgin animals treated with the carcinogen" (italics mine). Over the next two decades, however, their findings would be cited repeatedly as evidence that pregnancy begins a process of breast change which, when stopped by abortion, put female rats (and thus humans) at greater risk of cancer than
517:
containing 105,716 women (233/1,225 ABC cases/controls) concluded with a relative risk of 1.01 (0.88 – 1.17) "after adjustment for established breast cancer risk factors." Some of the results lead the authors to stipulate: "Although our data are not compatible with any substantial overall relation
555:
A review of ABC studies was conducted by
Bartholomew in 1998. It concluded that if studies least susceptible to response bias are considered, they suggest there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., a pro-life researcher and specialist in internal medicine,
464:
If politics gets involved in science, it will really hold back the progress we make. I have three sisters with breast cancer, and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between
251:
dismissed bias as a factor. The editorial cites the
Lindefors-Harris (1991) response bias study that used a "registry-based gold standard to show that healthy women consistently and widely underreport their history of abortion." Weed and Kramer considered this compelling evidence there could be
491:
Interview (case-control) based studies have been inconsistent on the ABC hypothesis. With the small numbers involved in each individual study and the possibility that response bias has skewed the results, the scientific consensus has focused on meta-analysis and record based studies which are
448:
RoyBoy (seeking secondary source): Using a potential ABC risk (without conceding there is one) as a pro-choice legal tactic in the U.S., as a counter to the onerous legislation on abortion providers and women. Premised on delaying/reducing access to abortion violates women rights to "life and
166:
examining young women with breast cancer in upstate New York. While the results indicated an increased risk of 1.9 (1.2–3.0) the authors concluded that the small dataset was inconclusive as fertility patterns were changing dramatically as a result of legal abortion and increased use of
194:
released their 1.5 (1.2-1.9) result Brind and anti-abortion activists seized on it and the small higher risk sub-group with poor controls as proof of their ABC link, while Daling was cautious and advised not taking "a firm conclusion at the time." A larger follow up study by Daling
241:
by using studies with widely varying results, using different types of studies, not working with the raw data from several studies, and studies with possible methodological weaknesses. The strong reaction to the study particularly in
Britain and the United States prompted the
152:(1981) study focused on oral contraceptive use of young women and found an increased ABC risk for women with induced or spontaneous abortion before their first full term pregnancy. This study caught the interest of Brind who then became involved in the topic. Dr. Vessey
145:. Even though the studies found similar risk rates between virgin and abortion rats, their research was used to support higher ABC risk for the next twenty years. However, because rats have neither breasts nor breast cancer, extrapolating to humans is viewed as dubious.
132:
in 1980 and 1982 examined the proposed ABC correlation. They found that rats who had interrupted pregnancies had no noticeable cancer risk increase and had "similar or even higher incidence of benign lesions", but there was no evidence that abortion resulted in higher
208:
1995 warned that legislation based on abortion-breast cancer research were premature. With these editorials Brind viewed it as pro-abortion efforts to minimize an ABC link, so he increased his efforts in the anti-abortion press while fighting against the
485:(RCOG) in March 2000 published evidence-based guidelines where they noted "Brind's paper had no methodological shortcomings and could not be disregarded." However, in 2003 the RCOG concluded that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer.
268:
is subject to sound inquiry, we are far from reaching a scientific "limit". Indeed, after this excursion into the issue of abortion, bias, and breast cancer, it seems our future has as much to do with human behavior as with human biology.
551:
explained even though they found the result "interesting and in line with the hypothesis of Russo and Russo, the small number of cases of cancer in women in this category of gestational age prompted us not to overstate the finding."
67:
into interview studies, especially for studies done in the past when abortion was less socially accepted. The statistical significance of this bias has not been determined. Research relevant to the current ABC consensus focuses on
171:
particularly among younger women. This was found to be mostly due to longer lifespans and the development of new detection methods capable of finding breast cancer earlier. After suffering setbacks, notably
President Clinton's
528:
Protective effect: Several studies have indicated a protective ABC effect, however incomplete data, lack of control group, failing to account for confounding factors, have limited their impact on the ABC topic and consensus.
199:(1996) found a smaller 1.2 (1.0-1.5) risk and emphasized they found no sub-group with an unusually high risk and concluded that: "data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time." Daling
2253:
Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, Peto R, Reeves G (2004). "Breast cancer and abortion: collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83?000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries".
2338:
1688:
Lindefors-Harris BM, Eklund G, Adami HO, Meirik O (1991). "Response bias in a case-control study: analysis utilizing comparative data concerning legal abortions from two independent
Swedish studies".
394:
Remove
Bartholomew, suggest" adds little, interview studies are not automatically bad; record based studies aren't automatically good (ie. Howe, which isn't subject to bias, just inadequate data).
1805:
Meirik O, Lund E, Adami HO, Bergström R, Christoffersen T, Bergsjö P (1986). "Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer in young women. A joint national case-control study in Sweden and Norway".
2727:
Ozmen, Vahit; Ozcinar, Beyza; Karanlik, Hasan; Cabioglu, Neslihan; Tukenmez, Mustafa; Disci, Rian; Ozmen, Tolga; Igci, Abdullah; Muslumanoglu, Mahmut; Kecer, Mustafa; Soran, Atilla (2009).
294:
pointed out that it came from a very small sample size with 1 control, and does not reflect how good case-control studies are designed to compare women within, not between, regions. Rookus
128:
in Europe and Asia touched on ABC correlations and their 1973 paper inaccurately concluded that "abortion was associated with increased, not decreased, risk." Russo & Russo from the
413:
Recall bias, Brind inaccurately accused of saying bias is "manufactured", actually was speaking to Rookus comparing dissimilar regions to get desired result; rather than within regions.
540:(1989) (65 ABC cases – 0 controls). overall risk of 0.8 (0.58 – 0.99), making for a 20% reduced risk in comparison to "contemporary Swedish population with due consideration to age."
544:, a pro-choice NGO 49,000 > 5,000 after 11 years. family history, the pill, no control group. Brind nulliparous in the cohort 41% vs 49% in the general. protective childbearing
532:
Several studies have indicated an induced abortion prevents breast cancer. Examples include: selection bias, Scottish
Brewster unknown issues, parity, no controls , Serbian
237:
published a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies finding on average a relative risk of 1.3 (1.2–1.4) increased risk of breast cancer. The meta-analysis was criticized for
167:
contraceptives, and did not account for significant confounding factors such as family history. In the early 1990s, there was growing concern of an increase in breast cancer
518:
between induced abortion and breast cancer, we cannot exclude a modest association in subgroups defined by known breast cancer risk factors, timing of abortion, or parity."
499:
no ABC link and that multiple abortions vast majority of the abortions in the Chinese study were done after the first full-term pregnancy. This differs from North America.
1977:
Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J (1997). "Re: Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study".
2052:
252:
systematic bias within the studies included in the meta-analysis and therefore a causal conclusion was a "leap beyond the bounds of inference" and concluded:
180:, the anti-abortion groups were in search of new tactics against abortion, so they began incorporating ABC findings into their new women-centered strategy.
2312:
2099:
482:
547:
Other researchers asked why an increased risk sub-group for induced abortions after 18 weeks gestation was not in the Melbye study abstract. Melbye
2856:
2449:
2297:
2236:
2201:
Newcomb PA, Storer BE, Longnecker MP, Mittendorf R, Greenberg ER, Willett WC (1996). "Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer".
2012:
1914:
1848:
1791:
1723:
1667:
1615:
1104:
960:
849:
290:(southeastern) regions indicated ABC relative risks of 1.3 (0.7–2.6) and 14.6 (1.8–120.0) respectively. Although this was a large variance, Brind
2599:
2567:
525:
have also found little evidence of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer. A study published in 2006, found no significant ABC risk.
996:
465:
breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid, and our data is accurate. It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of what is.
2797:
2514:
2492:
2470:
2084:
2036:
1540:
1172:
1150:
1128:
981:
750:
681:
2663:
Sanderson M; Shu XO; Jin F; et al. (2001). "Abortion history and breast cancer risk: results from the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study".
814:
Tang MT, Weiss NS, Daling JR, Malone KE (2000). "Case-control differences in the reliability of reporting a history of induced abortion".
3056:
2813:
J, Boeing H, Lahmann P, Wirfält E, Kaaks R, Riboli E (2006). "Breast cancer risk in relation to abortion: Results from the EPIC study".
776:
Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE (1996). "Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study".
1632:
Daling JR, Malone KE, Voigt LF, White E, Weiss NS (1994). "Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion".
173:
863:
Paoletti X, Clavel-Chapelon F (2003). "Induced and spontaneous abortion and breast cancer risk: results from the E3N cohort study".
600:
2530:
3012:
Bartholomew LL, Grimes DA (1998). "The alleged association between induced abortion and risk of breast cancer: biology or bias?".
60:
methodology, matching each woman in a study who has had an abortion (case) with similar women with no abortion history (control).
2870:
Ilic, M.; Vlajinac, H.; Marinkovic, J.; Sipetic-Grujicic, S. (July 29, 2012). "Abortion and breast cancer: case-control study".
203:
also examined the effect of response bias but did not find significant bias. An accompanying editorial by Lynn Rosenberg of the
2776:
2171:
1236:
407:
NCI workshop, Melbye positive risk sub-groups clarified & removed? Brind says unpublished data used, without proper review.
191:
422:
Recall bias, needs to be demonstrated per geographic (cultural) birth-cohort. Not extrapolated from one population to another.
1555:
2367:
248:
220:
where none exists. The Lindefors-Harris (1991) study was the first major study to examine response bias. Using data of two
204:
1026:
Kunz J, Keller PJ (1976). "HCG, HPL, oestradiol, progesterone and AFP in serum in patients with threatened abortion".
2123:
1580:
Feuer EJ, Wun LM, Boring CC, Flanders WD, Timmel MJ, Tong T (1993). "The lifetime risk of developing breast cancer".
622:
1290:
They observed that abortion left the rats highly susceptible to developing cancer, but that the aborted rats "were
1187:
Frazier, A Lindsay; Ryan, Catherine Tomeo; Rockett, Helaine; Willett, Walter C; Colditz, Graham A (February 2003).
703:
Weed DL, Kramer BS (1996). "Induced abortion, bias, and breast cancer: why epidemiology hasn't reached its limit".
379:
Daling, pro-choice bias interpreting ABC results. Only independant source to do so, hence not a WP:Weight problem.
514:
449:
liberty" by restricting choices and increasing potential health risks for abortions done later in the pregnancy.
1333:
435:
Minority of studies showing protective effect, include near end with study overview as not impacting consensus.
2200:
1867:"Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis"
1519:
913:"Risk of breast cancer after miscarriage or induced abortion: a Scottish record linkage case-control study"
209:
109:
56:, imprecise controls, or flawed statistical analysis. Studies traditionally control for such factors using
425:
Media & medical bodies, accepting null/negative results, criticizing (not reporting) positive results.
541:
416:
Recall bias, scientists call for it to be "ruled out", then don't seem to do the work until Tang (2000).
2610:
2574:
319:, determining that reliable scientific evidence shows no ABC link. The statistical adjustments for the
1004:
2729:"Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study"
148:
ABC research began in earnest in the 1980s and by 1990 there were ~15 studies on the topic. The Pike
2402:"Risk of cancer of the breast after legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study"
1804:
2713:
1412:"Oral contraceptive use and abortion before first term pregnancy in relation to breast cancer risk"
1363:"Oral contraceptive use and abortion before first term pregnancy in relation to breast cancer risk"
168:
52:. The significance of a result can be contentious because of incomplete data, missed breast cancer
2554:
410:
Pro-life legal tactics to delay / obstruct obtaining an abortion (part of women centric strategy)
129:
3048:
177:
2935:
2850:
2770:
2700:
2443:
2291:
2230:
2006:
1908:
1842:
1785:
1717:
1661:
1609:
1502:
1230:
1098:
954:
843:
391:
Melbye high-risk group, not good enough to make the abstract; not notable enough for article?
2906:
1579:
592:
502:
Interview studies ongoing in 2000s (since Beral), but not impacting scientific consensus:
8:
503:
327:
in July 1998 the NCI backtracked to ABC evidence being "inconsistent" on its fact sheet.
287:
53:
49:
21:
2936:"lifeissues.net | Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer"
568:
2838:
2753:
2728:
2688:
2426:
2401:
2279:
1954:
1929:
1891:
1866:
1830:
1768:
1743:
1701:
1485:
1436:
1411:
1387:
1362:
1346:
1276:
1251:
1051:
1039:
937:
912:
888:
827:
316:
57:
2267:
1818:
1213:
1188:
141:, cell division decreases and the cell cycle length increases, allowing more time for
3029:
3025:
2994:
2887:
2830:
2758:
2680:
2431:
2399:
2271:
2218:
2179:
2152:
1994:
1959:
1896:
1822:
1773:
1705:
1649:
1597:
1490:
1441:
1392:
1327:
1281:
1218:
1086:
1069:
B MacMahon, P Cole, and J Brown (1973). "Etiology of human breast cancer: a review".
1043:
942:
880:
831:
793:
720:
488:
However, subsequently the Lindefors-Harris conclusion was quietly retracted in 1998.
286:
to assess the effect of religion on ABC interview results. The secular (western) and
2842:
2692:
2283:
1834:
1055:
892:
3021:
2986:
2879:
2822:
2748:
2740:
2672:
2421:
2413:
2263:
2210:
2144:
1986:
1949:
1941:
1886:
1878:
1814:
1763:
1755:
1697:
1641:
1589:
1480:
1472:
1431:
1423:
1382:
1374:
1271:
1263:
1208:
1200:
1078:
1035:
932:
924:
910:
872:
823:
785:
712:
137:. A later study in 1987 clarified that when full-term pregnancy differentiates the
2124:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/05/004-abortion-breast-cancer-and-ideology
2635:
2363:
2135:
Brind J, Chinchilli VM (1997). "Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer".
1687:
1631:
1308:
2990:
2531:"FINDINGS LINKING CANCER TO ABORTIONS A WELL-KEPT SECRET. – Free Online Library"
2148:
1976:
1864:
352:
238:
134:
122:
100:
by low hormone levels. Kunz & Keller (1976) established that low levels of
2959:
2417:
1645:
1460:
1267:
789:
716:
2977:
Senghas R, Dolan M (1997). "Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer".
1593:
928:
320:
216:
138:
73:
64:
45:
1990:
1476:
229:
Notes: LH 1.5 conclusion widely reported, the criticism and retraction, not?
2891:
2834:
2762:
2744:
2684:
2275:
2214:
1494:
1285:
1222:
1082:
946:
884:
835:
522:
101:
77:
69:
41:
3033:
2998:
2435:
2222:
2156:
2100:"Planned Parenthood – Anti-Choice Claims About Abortion and Breast Cancer"
1998:
1963:
1945:
1900:
1882:
1826:
1777:
1759:
1709:
1653:
1601:
1445:
1396:
1090:
797:
724:
108:; making them better indicators of a threatened pregnancy than the 79% of
2252:
1930:"Abortion, breast cancer, and impact factors—in this number and the last"
438:
Pro-life relying on interview study evidence and tentative conclusion(s).
283:
89:
17:
1427:
1378:
1047:
2883:
2636:"Is there a link between abortion and breast cancer? A balanced review"
997:"The Recurrent Miscarriage Clinic – What Causes Recurrent Miscarriage?"
813:
343:
324:
312:
142:
2869:
2826:
876:
2676:
105:
2726:
1204:
2053:"Big Study Finds No Link In Abortion and Cancer – New York Times"
1252:"Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States"
373:
Melbye (others), risk among sub-groups, no RS secondary sources?
1068:
404:
Melbye's dataset hasn't been reanalyzed with controls? Why not?
221:
2400:
Harris BM, Eklund G, Meirik O, Rutqvist LE, Wiklund K (1989).
862:
162:
The first notable ABC record based study in 1989 was by Howe
1741:
911:
Brewster DH, Stockton DL, Dobbie R, Bull D, Beral V (2005).
1410:
Vessey, M. P.; McPherson, K.; Yeates, D.; Doll, R. (1982).
1361:
Vessey, M. P.; McPherson, K.; Yeates, D.; Doll, R. (1982).
307:
A large, highly regarded ABC study was published by Melbye
2339:"Abortions Do Not Raise Risk of Breast Cancer, Study Says"
623:"ACS :: What Are the Risk Factors for Breast Cancer?"
3011:
2662:
1409:
1360:
1186:
775:
104:
was followed by miscarriage 89% of the time, and 92% for
1865:
Brind J, Chinchilli VM, Severs WB, Summy-Long J (1996).
382:
Sanderson, Chinese abortion not the same as Western use.
376:
Melbye, reply gets Brind's position wrong, adds nothing.
76:
which review and combine the numerous smaller interview
2134:
1744:"Relation between induced abortion and breast cancer"
1452:
1306:
536:, small and only with (very?) parious women Harris
2976:
2336:
702:
3040:
2607:Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
1025:
483:Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
388:RCOG re Brind, outdated and shooting match stuff.
2364:"Breast Cancer Prevention Institute Fact Sheets"
2310:
1307:Yeoman, Barry; Michael Lewis (1 February 2003).
593:"Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States"
63:The controversial nature of abortion introduces
2963::Abortion and breast cancer: case-control study
2600:"The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion"
2568:"The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion"
1556:"Judge to Rule on Abortion, Breast Cancer Link"
247:An editorial by Weed and Kramer focused on how
906:
904:
902:
569:"Cancer Risk and Abnormal Breast Cancer Genes"
244:Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health
2313:"Abortion's Link to Breast Cancer Discounted"
2050:
1028:British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
419:Recall bias, Tang (2000) any impact? Why not?
385:Rookus, guessing why Daling didn't find bias.
2904:
2855:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
2658:
2656:
2448:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
2296:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
2235:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
2011:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1913:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1871:Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
1847:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1790:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1748:Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
1722:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1666:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1614:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
1103:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
959:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
917:Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
848:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
587:
585:
453:
3005:
2929:
2927:
2304:
2117:
1356:
1354:
1189:"Adolescent diet and risk of breast cancer"
1180:
899:
2972:
2970:
2898:
2163:
2752:
2653:
2560:
2425:
2395:
2393:
2391:
2389:
2387:
2385:
2330:
2044:
2024:
2022:
1953:
1890:
1767:
1737:
1735:
1733:
1683:
1681:
1679:
1677:
1627:
1625:
1484:
1435:
1386:
1275:
1212:
936:
738:
736:
734:
582:
311:(1997) of the Statens Serum Institute in
282:(1996) study compared two regions in the
174:Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act
2924:
2500:
2456:
2356:
2248:
2246:
2128:
1927:
1860:
1858:
1351:
1300:
1116:
1114:
771:
769:
767:
765:
763:
761:
669:
667:
665:
663:
561:
495:2001 study Shanghai, China by Sanderson
3046:
2967:
2907:"CHAPTER 6: BREAST CANCER AND ABORTION"
2796:was invoked but never defined (see the
2783:
2720:
2557:– Breast cancer and abortion: the facts
2513:was invoked but never defined (see the
2491:was invoked but never defined (see the
2469:was invoked but never defined (see the
2194:
2083:was invoked but never defined (see the
2035:was invoked but never defined (see the
1539:was invoked but never defined (see the
1171:was invoked but never defined (see the
1149:was invoked but never defined (see the
1127:was invoked but never defined (see the
980:was invoked but never defined (see the
749:was invoked but never defined (see the
680:was invoked but never defined (see the
661:
659:
657:
655:
653:
651:
649:
647:
645:
643:
430:Memes in need of better sourcing/prose:
96:by low hormones, most miscarriages are
83:
14:
3014:Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey
2933:
2863:
2528:
2522:
2382:
2019:
1921:
1730:
1674:
1622:
1548:
1158:
1136:
967:
809:
807:
731:
698:
696:
694:
692:
192:Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
2243:
2169:
2070:
1855:
1742:Meirik O, Adami HO, Eklund G (1998).
1458:
1249:
1111:
758:
72:using large population datasets; and
2805:
2370:from the original on 15 October 2007
2337:Lawrence K. Altman (25 March 2004).
1526:
640:
603:from the original on 13 October 2007
457:
362:
302:
257:
205:Boston University School of Medicine
176:in 1994 and political backlash from
35:
3059:from the original on 6 January 2008
2788:
2505:
2483:
2478:
2461:
2075:
2027:
1531:
1163:
1141:
1119:
972:
804:
741:
689:
672:
27:
2775:: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
2733:World Journal of Surgical Oncology
2311:Shankar Vedantam (26 March 2004).
2092:
1702:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116173
1295:those who had never been pregnant.
1250:Jasen, Patricia (1 October 2005).
1235:: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
1040:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1976.tb00903.x
828:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010163
615:
88:Studies of spontaneous abortions (
28:
3081:
521:Several other recent prospective
347:as a collaborative reanalysis on
3026:10.1097/00006254-199811000-00024
2051:Jane E. Brody (9 January 1997).
264:Because bias impedes our vision
115:
2953:
2628:
2592:
2548:
1970:
1798:
1573:
1403:
1340:
1243:
1062:
1019:
989:
515:Harvard School of Public Health
1309:"Scientist Who Hated Abortion"
856:
13:
1:
2268:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15835-2
1819:10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90166-2
2573:. p. 43. Archived from
1934:J Epidemiol Community Health
1465:J Epidemiol Community Health
1461:"Abortion and breast cancer"
110:human chorionic gonadotropin
7:
2991:10.1056/NEJM199706193362514
2170:Brind, Joel (August 2000).
2149:10.1056/NEJM199706193362514
542:Family Health International
10:
3086:
3053:CatholicCitizens.org title
1928:Donnan S (December 1996).
1332:: CS1 maint: url-status (
349:Breast cancer and abortion
30:
2418:10.1136/bmj.299.6713.1430
1268:10.1017/S0025727300009145
454:Primary cruft (reference)
929:10.1136/jech.2004.026393
2710:|author-separator=
1646:10.1093/jnci/86.21.1584
1477:10.1136/jech.56.3.237-a
790:10.1093/jnci/88.23.1759
717:10.1093/jnci/88.23.1698
492:typically much larger.
130:Fox Chase Cancer Center
2745:10.1186/1477-7819-7-37
2640:religioustolerance.org
2215:10.1001/jama.275.4.283
1594:10.1093/jnci/85.11.892
1193:Breast Cancer Research
2104:plannedparenthood.org
1991:10.1093/jnci/89.8.588
1946:10.1136/jech.50.6.605
1883:10.1136/jech.50.5.481
1760:10.1136/jech.52.3.209
341:published a study in
337:In March 2004, Beral
249:Brind's meta-analysis
183:~in progress marker~
159:~in progress marker~
2878:(4). Serbia: 452–7.
2792:The named reference
2509:The named reference
2487:The named reference
2465:The named reference
2079:The named reference
2031:The named reference
1979:J. Natl. Cancer Inst
1634:J. Natl. Cancer Inst
1582:J. Natl. Cancer Inst
1535:The named reference
1167:The named reference
1145:The named reference
1123:The named reference
1083:10.1093/jnci/50.1.21
976:The named reference
778:J. Natl. Cancer Inst
745:The named reference
705:J. Natl. Cancer Inst
676:The named reference
212:approval of RU-486.
84:Spontaneous abortion
44:are calculated as a
3049:"Catholic Citizens"
2317:The Washington Post
1428:10.1038/bjc.1982.58
1379:10.1038/bjc.1982.58
1071:J. Nat. Cancer Inst
509:A study by Michels
504:Istanbul University
54:confounding factors
50:confidence interval
2905:Chris Kahlenborn.
2884:10.1700/1361.15093
2708:Unknown parameter
2616:on 31 October 2007
2343:The New York Times
2172:"Reading the Data"
1510:Unknown parameter
443:Original research:
317:Planned Parenthood
2985:(25): 1834–1835.
2827:10.1002/ijc.22001
2262:(9414): 1007–16.
2143:(25): 1834–1835.
1459:Brind, J (2002).
877:10.1002/ijc.11203
472:
471:
363:Memes & stuff
303:Consensus studies
276:
275:
36:Study methodology
3077:
3069:
3068:
3066:
3064:
3044:
3038:
3037:
3009:
3003:
3002:
2974:
2965:
2957:
2951:
2950:
2948:
2946:
2931:
2922:
2921:
2919:
2917:
2902:
2896:
2895:
2867:
2861:
2860:
2854:
2846:
2809:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2795:
2787:
2781:
2780:
2774:
2766:
2756:
2724:
2718:
2717:
2711:
2706:
2704:
2696:
2677:10.1002/ijc.1263
2660:
2651:
2650:
2648:
2646:
2632:
2626:
2625:
2623:
2621:
2615:
2609:. Archived from
2604:
2596:
2590:
2589:
2587:
2585:
2579:
2572:
2564:
2558:
2552:
2546:
2545:
2543:
2541:
2526:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2512:
2504:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2490:
2482:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2468:
2460:
2454:
2453:
2447:
2439:
2429:
2412:(6713): 1430–2.
2397:
2380:
2379:
2377:
2375:
2360:
2354:
2353:
2351:
2349:
2334:
2328:
2327:
2325:
2323:
2308:
2302:
2301:
2295:
2287:
2250:
2241:
2240:
2234:
2226:
2198:
2192:
2191:
2189:
2187:
2178:. Archived from
2167:
2161:
2160:
2132:
2126:
2121:
2115:
2114:
2112:
2110:
2096:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2082:
2074:
2068:
2067:
2065:
2063:
2048:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2034:
2026:
2017:
2016:
2010:
2002:
1974:
1968:
1967:
1957:
1925:
1919:
1918:
1912:
1904:
1894:
1862:
1853:
1852:
1846:
1838:
1802:
1796:
1795:
1789:
1781:
1771:
1739:
1728:
1727:
1721:
1713:
1690:Am. J. Epidemiol
1685:
1672:
1671:
1665:
1657:
1629:
1620:
1619:
1613:
1605:
1577:
1571:
1570:
1568:
1566:
1552:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1538:
1530:
1524:
1523:
1517:
1513:
1512:|coauthors=
1508:
1506:
1498:
1488:
1456:
1450:
1449:
1439:
1407:
1401:
1400:
1390:
1358:
1349:
1344:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1323:
1321:
1319:
1304:
1298:
1297:
1292:at the same risk
1279:
1247:
1241:
1240:
1234:
1226:
1216:
1184:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1170:
1162:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1148:
1140:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1126:
1118:
1109:
1108:
1102:
1094:
1077:(21–42): 21–42.
1066:
1060:
1059:
1023:
1017:
1016:
1014:
1012:
1003:. Archived from
993:
987:
986:
985:
979:
971:
965:
964:
958:
950:
940:
908:
897:
896:
860:
854:
853:
847:
839:
816:Am. J. Epidemiol
811:
802:
801:
773:
756:
755:
754:
748:
740:
729:
728:
711:(23): 1698–700.
700:
687:
686:
685:
679:
671:
638:
637:
635:
633:
619:
613:
612:
610:
608:
589:
580:
579:
577:
575:
565:
513:(2007) from the
458:
330:A study by Tang
258:
190:(1994) from the
3085:
3084:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3072:
3062:
3060:
3045:
3041:
3010:
3006:
2975:
2968:
2958:
2954:
2944:
2942:
2932:
2925:
2915:
2913:
2903:
2899:
2868:
2864:
2848:
2847:
2810:
2806:
2793:
2791:
2789:
2784:
2768:
2767:
2725:
2721:
2709:
2707:
2698:
2697:
2661:
2654:
2644:
2642:
2634:
2633:
2629:
2619:
2617:
2613:
2602:
2598:
2597:
2593:
2583:
2581:
2580:on 27 June 2008
2577:
2570:
2566:
2565:
2561:
2553:
2549:
2539:
2537:
2535:L.A. Daily News
2527:
2523:
2510:
2508:
2506:
2501:
2488:
2486:
2484:
2479:
2466:
2464:
2462:
2457:
2441:
2440:
2398:
2383:
2373:
2371:
2362:
2361:
2357:
2347:
2345:
2335:
2331:
2321:
2319:
2309:
2305:
2289:
2288:
2251:
2244:
2228:
2227:
2199:
2195:
2185:
2183:
2168:
2164:
2137:N. Engl. J. Med
2133:
2129:
2122:
2118:
2108:
2106:
2098:
2097:
2093:
2080:
2078:
2076:
2071:
2061:
2059:
2049:
2045:
2032:
2030:
2028:
2020:
2004:
2003:
1975:
1971:
1926:
1922:
1906:
1905:
1863:
1856:
1840:
1839:
1813:(8508): 650–4.
1803:
1799:
1783:
1782:
1740:
1731:
1715:
1714:
1686:
1675:
1659:
1658:
1640:(21): 1584–92.
1630:
1623:
1607:
1606:
1578:
1574:
1564:
1562:
1560:womensenews.org
1554:
1553:
1549:
1536:
1534:
1532:
1527:
1515:
1511:
1509:
1500:
1499:
1457:
1453:
1408:
1404:
1359:
1352:
1345:
1341:
1325:
1324:
1317:
1315:
1305:
1301:
1256:Medical History
1248:
1244:
1228:
1227:
1185:
1181:
1168:
1166:
1164:
1159:
1146:
1144:
1142:
1137:
1124:
1122:
1120:
1112:
1096:
1095:
1067:
1063:
1024:
1020:
1010:
1008:
1007:on 7 March 2005
1001:st-marys.nhs.uk
995:
994:
990:
977:
975:
973:
968:
952:
951:
909:
900:
861:
857:
841:
840:
822:(12): 1139–43.
812:
805:
784:(23): 1759–64.
774:
759:
746:
744:
742:
732:
701:
690:
677:
675:
673:
641:
631:
629:
621:
620:
616:
606:
604:
591:
590:
583:
573:
571:
567:
566:
562:
456:
365:
305:
299:convincingly."
255:
233:In 1996, Brind
118:
86:
38:
33:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3083:
3071:
3070:
3039:
3020:(11): 708–14.
3004:
2966:
2952:
2940:lifeissues.net
2923:
2911:lifeissues.net
2897:
2862:
2815:Int. J. Cancer
2804:
2782:
2739:(37): 708–14.
2719:
2671:(6): 899–905.
2665:Int. J. Cancer
2652:
2627:
2591:
2559:
2547:
2521:
2499:
2477:
2455:
2381:
2355:
2329:
2303:
2242:
2193:
2162:
2127:
2116:
2091:
2069:
2057:New York Times
2043:
2018:
1969:
1920:
1854:
1797:
1729:
1673:
1621:
1572:
1547:
1525:
1471:(3): 237–238.
1451:
1402:
1350:
1339:
1299:
1262:(4): 423–444.
1242:
1205:10.1186/bcr583
1179:
1157:
1135:
1110:
1061:
1018:
988:
966:
898:
865:Int. J. Cancer
855:
803:
757:
730:
688:
639:
614:
597:guttmacher.org
581:
559:
558:
523:cohort studies
470:
469:
466:
462:
455:
452:
451:
450:
440:
439:
436:
427:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
411:
408:
405:
399:Memes missing:
396:
395:
392:
389:
386:
383:
380:
377:
374:
368:Memes removed:
364:
361:
353:selection bias
304:
301:
274:
273:
270:
262:
239:selection bias
231:
230:
135:carcinogenesis
123:Brian MacMahon
117:
114:
85:
82:
80:studies done.
70:cohort studies
37:
34:
32:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3082:
3058:
3054:
3050:
3047:Karen Malec.
3043:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3023:
3019:
3015:
3008:
3000:
2996:
2992:
2988:
2984:
2980:
2973:
2971:
2964:
2962:
2956:
2941:
2937:
2930:
2928:
2912:
2908:
2901:
2893:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2877:
2873:
2866:
2858:
2852:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2828:
2824:
2821:(7): 1741–5.
2820:
2816:
2808:
2799:
2786:
2778:
2772:
2764:
2760:
2755:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2723:
2715:
2702:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2678:
2674:
2670:
2666:
2659:
2657:
2641:
2637:
2631:
2612:
2608:
2601:
2595:
2576:
2569:
2563:
2556:
2555:theage.com.au
2551:
2536:
2532:
2525:
2516:
2503:
2494:
2481:
2472:
2459:
2451:
2445:
2437:
2433:
2428:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2396:
2394:
2392:
2390:
2388:
2386:
2369:
2365:
2359:
2344:
2340:
2333:
2318:
2314:
2307:
2299:
2293:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2257:
2249:
2247:
2238:
2232:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2197:
2182:on 2004-06-12
2181:
2177:
2173:
2166:
2158:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2131:
2125:
2120:
2105:
2101:
2095:
2086:
2073:
2058:
2054:
2047:
2038:
2025:
2023:
2014:
2008:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1985:(8): 588–90.
1984:
1980:
1973:
1965:
1961:
1956:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1924:
1916:
1910:
1902:
1898:
1893:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1877:(5): 481–96.
1876:
1872:
1868:
1861:
1859:
1850:
1844:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1801:
1793:
1787:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1754:(3): 209–11.
1753:
1749:
1745:
1738:
1736:
1734:
1725:
1719:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1696:(9): 1003–8.
1695:
1691:
1684:
1682:
1680:
1678:
1669:
1663:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1628:
1626:
1617:
1611:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1588:(11): 892–7.
1587:
1583:
1576:
1561:
1557:
1551:
1542:
1529:
1521:
1516:|author=
1504:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1455:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:Br. J. Cancer
1413:
1406:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1373:(3): 327–31.
1372:
1368:
1367:Br. J. Cancer
1364:
1357:
1355:
1348:
1343:
1335:
1329:
1314:
1310:
1303:
1296:
1293:
1287:
1283:
1278:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1246:
1238:
1232:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1199:(3): R59-64.
1198:
1194:
1190:
1183:
1174:
1161:
1152:
1139:
1130:
1117:
1115:
1106:
1100:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1065:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1022:
1006:
1002:
998:
992:
983:
970:
962:
956:
948:
944:
939:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
907:
905:
903:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
859:
851:
845:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
810:
808:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
772:
770:
768:
766:
764:
762:
752:
739:
737:
735:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
699:
697:
695:
693:
683:
670:
668:
666:
664:
662:
660:
658:
656:
654:
652:
650:
648:
646:
644:
628:
624:
618:
602:
598:
594:
588:
586:
570:
564:
560:
557:
553:
550:
545:
543:
539:
535:
530:
526:
524:
519:
516:
512:
507:
505:
500:
498:
493:
489:
486:
484:
479:
477:
467:
463:
460:
459:
447:
446:
445:
444:
437:
434:
433:
432:
431:
424:
421:
418:
415:
412:
409:
406:
403:
402:
401:
400:
393:
390:
387:
384:
381:
378:
375:
372:
371:
370:
369:
360:
356:
354:
350:
346:
345:
340:
335:
333:
328:
326:
322:
321:cohort effect
318:
314:
310:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
271:
267:
263:
260:
259:
256:
253:
250:
245:
240:
236:
228:
227:
226:
223:
218:
217:response bias
213:
211:
206:
202:
198:
193:
189:
184:
181:
179:
175:
170:
165:
160:
157:
155:
151:
146:
144:
140:
139:mammary gland
136:
131:
127:
124:
116:Early studies
113:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:characterized
95:
91:
81:
79:
75:
74:meta-analyses
71:
66:
65:response bias
61:
59:
55:
51:
47:
46:relative risk
43:
23:
19:
3061:. Retrieved
3052:
3042:
3017:
3013:
3007:
2982:
2979:N Engl J Med
2978:
2960:
2955:
2943:. Retrieved
2939:
2934:Joel Brind.
2914:. Retrieved
2910:
2900:
2875:
2871:
2865:
2851:cite journal
2818:
2814:
2807:
2790:Cite error:
2785:
2771:cite journal
2736:
2732:
2722:
2701:cite journal
2668:
2664:
2643:. Retrieved
2639:
2630:
2618:. Retrieved
2611:the original
2606:
2594:
2582:. Retrieved
2575:the original
2562:
2550:
2538:. Retrieved
2534:
2529:Joe Gelman.
2524:
2507:Cite error:
2502:
2485:Cite error:
2480:
2463:Cite error:
2458:
2444:cite journal
2409:
2405:
2372:. Retrieved
2358:
2346:. Retrieved
2342:
2332:
2320:. Retrieved
2316:
2306:
2292:cite journal
2259:
2255:
2231:cite journal
2209:(4): 283–7.
2206:
2202:
2196:
2186:28 September
2184:. Retrieved
2180:the original
2175:
2165:
2140:
2136:
2130:
2119:
2107:. Retrieved
2103:
2094:
2077:Cite error:
2072:
2060:. Retrieved
2056:
2046:
2029:Cite error:
2007:cite journal
1982:
1978:
1972:
1937:
1933:
1923:
1909:cite journal
1874:
1870:
1843:cite journal
1810:
1806:
1800:
1786:cite journal
1751:
1747:
1718:cite journal
1693:
1689:
1662:cite journal
1637:
1633:
1610:cite journal
1585:
1581:
1575:
1563:. Retrieved
1559:
1550:
1533:Cite error:
1528:
1518:suggested) (
1503:cite journal
1468:
1464:
1454:
1419:
1415:
1405:
1370:
1366:
1342:
1316:. Retrieved
1312:
1302:
1291:
1289:
1259:
1255:
1245:
1231:cite journal
1196:
1192:
1182:
1165:Cite error:
1160:
1143:Cite error:
1138:
1121:Cite error:
1099:cite journal
1074:
1070:
1064:
1034:(8): 640–4.
1031:
1027:
1021:
1009:. Retrieved
1005:the original
1000:
991:
974:Cite error:
969:
955:cite journal
923:(4): 283–7.
920:
916:
871:(2): 270–6.
868:
864:
858:
844:cite journal
819:
815:
781:
777:
743:Cite error:
708:
704:
674:Cite error:
630:. Retrieved
626:
617:
605:. Retrieved
596:
572:. Retrieved
563:
554:
548:
546:
537:
533:
531:
527:
520:
510:
508:
501:
496:
494:
490:
487:
480:
475:
473:
442:
441:
429:
428:
398:
397:
367:
366:
357:
348:
342:
338:
336:
331:
329:
308:
306:
295:
291:
288:conservative
279:
277:
265:
254:
243:
234:
232:
214:
200:
196:
187:
186:When Daling
185:
182:
163:
161:
158:
153:
149:
147:
125:
119:
102:progesterone
97:
93:
90:miscarriages
87:
78:case-control
62:
58:case-control
42:epidemiology
39:
2540:30 December
1347:Pike (1981)
1318:9 September
284:Netherlands
278:The Rookus
40:Results in
18:User:RoyBoy
3063:21 January
2945:23 January
2916:23 January
2645:4 November
2620:7 November
2374:4 November
2109:4 November
1940:(6): 605.
1565:4 November
1422:(3): 328.
1011:4 November
632:4 November
627:cancer.org
607:4 November
574:4 November
344:The Lancet
325:Tom Coburn
313:Copenhagen
215:Recall or
143:DNA repair
106:oestradiol
2798:help page
2712:ignored (
2515:help page
2493:help page
2471:help page
2176:Physician
2085:help page
2037:help page
1541:help page
1514:ignored (
1173:help page
1151:help page
1129:help page
982:help page
751:help page
682:help page
169:incidence
3057:Archived
2892:24326831
2843:44705048
2835:16646050
2763:19356229
2693:25073912
2685:11351314
2511:ACSfacts
2467:NCIfacts
2368:Archived
2348:14 April
2322:14 April
2284:20751083
2276:15051280
1835:40193118
1495:11854350
1328:cite web
1313:Discover
1286:16562329
1223:12631400
1056:20062303
947:15767381
893:22729240
885:12800205
836:10905525
601:Archived
178:violence
20: |
3034:9812330
2999:9190497
2794:Michels
2754:2678125
2584:29 June
2436:2514825
2427:1838310
2223:8544267
2157:9190496
1999:9106653
1964:9039374
1955:1060372
1901:8944853
1892:1060338
1827:2876135
1778:9616432
1769:1756684
1710:1951288
1654:7932822
1602:8492317
1486:1732098
1446:7041938
1437:2010930
1397:7041938
1388:2010930
1277:1251638
1091:4571238
938:1733063
798:8944006
747:DALING2
725:8943995
506:, 2009
474:Daling
222:Swedish
112:(hCG).
48:with a
31:History
22:sandbox
3032:
2997:
2961:Tumori
2890:
2872:Tumori
2841:
2833:
2761:
2751:
2691:
2683:
2434:
2424:
2282:
2274:
2256:Lancet
2221:
2155:
2062:3 July
2033:MELBYE
1997:
1962:
1952:
1899:
1889:
1833:
1825:
1807:Lancet
1776:
1766:
1708:
1652:
1600:
1493:
1483:
1444:
1434:
1395:
1385:
1284:
1274:
1221:
1214:164999
1211:
1169:RUSSO3
1147:RUSSO2
1089:
1054:
1046:
978:ARTHUR
945:
935:
891:
883:
834:
796:
723:
549:et al.
538:et al.
534:Tumori
511:et al.
497:et al.
476:et al.
339:et al.
332:et al.
309:et al.
296:et al.
292:et al.
280:et al.
235:et al.
201:et al.
197:et al.
188:et al.
164:et al.
154:et al.
150:et al.
126:et al.
94:caused
2839:S2CID
2689:S2CID
2614:(PDF)
2603:(PDF)
2578:(PDF)
2571:(PDF)
2280:S2CID
2081:HOUSE
1831:S2CID
1125:RUSSO
1052:S2CID
1048:60125
889:S2CID
678:JASEN
16:<
3065:2008
3030:PMID
2995:PMID
2947:2008
2918:2008
2888:PMID
2857:link
2831:PMID
2777:link
2759:PMID
2714:help
2681:PMID
2647:2007
2622:2007
2586:2008
2542:2007
2450:link
2432:PMID
2376:2007
2350:2008
2324:2008
2298:link
2272:PMID
2237:link
2219:PMID
2203:JAMA
2188:2014
2153:PMID
2111:2007
2064:2008
2013:link
1995:PMID
1960:PMID
1915:link
1897:PMID
1849:link
1823:PMID
1792:link
1774:PMID
1724:link
1706:PMID
1668:link
1650:PMID
1616:link
1598:PMID
1567:2007
1537:HOWE
1520:help
1491:PMID
1442:PMID
1393:PMID
1334:link
1320:2014
1282:PMID
1237:link
1219:PMID
1105:link
1087:PMID
1044:PMID
1013:2007
961:link
943:PMID
881:PMID
850:link
832:PMID
794:PMID
721:PMID
634:2007
609:2007
576:2007
481:The
3022:doi
2987:doi
2983:336
2880:doi
2823:doi
2819:119
2749:PMC
2741:doi
2673:doi
2489:WHO
2422:PMC
2414:doi
2410:299
2406:BMJ
2264:doi
2260:363
2211:doi
2207:275
2145:doi
2141:336
1987:doi
1950:PMC
1942:doi
1887:PMC
1879:doi
1815:doi
1764:PMC
1756:doi
1698:doi
1694:134
1642:doi
1590:doi
1481:PMC
1473:doi
1432:PMC
1424:doi
1383:PMC
1375:doi
1272:PMC
1264:doi
1209:PMC
1201:doi
1079:doi
1036:doi
933:PMC
925:doi
873:doi
869:106
824:doi
820:151
786:doi
713:doi
266:and
210:FDA
121:by
3055:.
3051:.
3028:.
3018:53
3016:.
2993:.
2981:.
2969:^
2938:.
2926:^
2909:.
2886:.
2876:99
2874:.
2853:}}
2849:{{
2837:.
2829:.
2817:.
2800:).
2773:}}
2769:{{
2757:.
2747:.
2735:.
2731:.
2705::
2703:}}
2699:{{
2687:.
2679:.
2669:92
2667:.
2655:^
2638:.
2605:.
2533:.
2517:).
2495:).
2473:).
2446:}}
2442:{{
2430:.
2420:.
2408:.
2404:.
2384:^
2366:.
2341:.
2315:.
2294:}}
2290:{{
2278:.
2270:.
2258:.
2245:^
2233:}}
2229:{{
2217:.
2205:.
2174:.
2151:.
2139:.
2102:.
2087:).
2055:.
2039:).
2021:^
2009:}}
2005:{{
1993:.
1983:89
1981:.
1958:.
1948:.
1938:50
1936:.
1932:.
1911:}}
1907:{{
1895:.
1885:.
1875:50
1873:.
1869:.
1857:^
1845:}}
1841:{{
1829:.
1821:.
1809:.
1788:}}
1784:{{
1772:.
1762:.
1752:52
1750:.
1746:.
1732:^
1720:}}
1716:{{
1704:.
1692:.
1676:^
1664:}}
1660:{{
1648:.
1638:86
1636:.
1624:^
1612:}}
1608:{{
1596:.
1586:85
1584:.
1558:.
1543:).
1507::
1505:}}
1501:{{
1489:.
1479:.
1469:56
1467:.
1463:.
1440:.
1430:.
1420:45
1418:.
1414:.
1391:.
1381:.
1371:45
1369:.
1365:.
1353:^
1330:}}
1326:{{
1311:.
1288:.
1280:.
1270:.
1260:49
1258:.
1254:.
1233:}}
1229:{{
1217:.
1207:.
1195:.
1191:.
1175:).
1153:).
1131:).
1113:^
1101:}}
1097:{{
1085:.
1075:50
1073:.
1050:.
1042:.
1032:83
1030:.
999:.
984:).
957:}}
953:{{
941:.
931:.
921:59
919:.
915:.
901:^
887:.
879:.
867:.
846:}}
842:{{
830:.
818:.
806:^
792:.
782:88
780:.
760:^
753:).
733:^
719:.
709:88
707:.
691:^
684:).
642:^
625:.
599:.
595:.
584:^
468:”
461:“
272:”
261:“
3067:.
3036:.
3024::
3001:.
2989::
2949:.
2920:.
2894:.
2882::
2859:)
2845:.
2825::
2779:)
2765:.
2743::
2737:7
2716:)
2695:.
2675::
2649:.
2624:.
2588:.
2544:.
2452:)
2438:.
2416::
2378:.
2352:.
2326:.
2300:)
2286:.
2266::
2239:)
2225:.
2213::
2190:.
2159:.
2147::
2113:.
2066:.
2015:)
2001:.
1989::
1966:.
1944::
1917:)
1903:.
1881::
1851:)
1837:.
1817::
1811:2
1794:)
1780:.
1758::
1726:)
1712:.
1700::
1670:)
1656:.
1644::
1618:)
1604:.
1592::
1569:.
1522:)
1497:.
1475::
1448:.
1426::
1399:.
1377::
1336:)
1322:.
1266::
1239:)
1225:.
1203::
1197:5
1107:)
1093:.
1081::
1058:.
1038::
1015:.
963:)
949:.
927::
895:.
875::
852:)
838:.
826::
800:.
788::
727:.
715::
636:.
611:.
578:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.