ArticleBritish journal of cancer2004
Childhood leukaemia incidence and the population mixing hypothesis in US SEER data.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An examination, with a meta-analysis, of studies of childhood leukaemia in relation to population mixing.British journal of cancer · 2012Pooled it
- Association of population mixing and acute lymphocytic leukemia in children and young adults.Cancer epidemiology · 2020Article
- Temporal association between childhood leukaemia and population growth in Swiss municipalities.European journal of epidemiology · 2016Article
- The authors' reply: Population mixing and childhood leukaemia.European journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
- Population mixing and the risk of childhood leukaemia in Switzerland: a census-based cohort study.European journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
- Cancer clusters in the USA: what do the last twenty years of state and federal investigations tell us?Critical reviews in toxicology · 2012Review
- Cancer risks near nuclear facilities: the importance of research design and explicit study hypotheses.Environmental health perspectives · 2011Article
- Childhood leukaemia, nuclear sites, and population mixing.British journal of cancer · 2011Review
- Childhood leukaemia and population movements in France, 1990-2003.British journal of cancer · 2008Article
- Does population mixing measure infectious exposure in children at the community level?European journal of epidemiology · 2008Article
- Incidence of leukemias in children from El Salvador and Mexico City between 1996 and 2000: population-based data.BMC cancer · 2005Article
- Childhood leukaemia incidence and the population mixing hypothesis in US SEER data.British journal of cancer · 2005Article
- Childhood leukemia, military aviation facilities, and population mixing.Environmental health perspectives · 2004Article
- Population mixing and childhood leukaemia: Fallon and other US clusters.British journal of cancer · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the infectious aetiology hypothesis of childhood leukaemia that rapid population influx into rural areas is associated with increased risk. Using data from the US SEER program, we found that in changes in rural county population sizes from 1980 to 1989 were associated with incidence rates for childhood acute lymphocytic leukaemia (ALL). The observed associations were strongest among children 0-4 years of age, born in the same state as diagnosis, in extremely rural counties, and when counties adjacent to nonrural counties were excluded. Similar analyses for brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancer in children, a disease less linked to this infectious hypothesis, provide evidence against methodologic bias. Similar evaluations for other decades were not meaningful due to limited sample sizes and, perhaps, increased population mobility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.