Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19066933›Full record

SynthesisInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2009

Is exposure to silica associated with lung cancer in the absence of silicosis? A meta-analytical approach to an important public health question.

Thomas C Erren, Christine B Glende, Peter Morfeld, Claus Piekarski

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Lung cancer risk and occupational pulmonary fibrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. RSC advances · 2019
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Bayesian bias adjustments of the lung cancer SMR in a cohort of German carbon black production workers.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2010
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas C ErrenInstitute and Policlinic for Occupational and Social Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Cologne, Kerpener Strasse 62, 50937 Cologne, Lindenthal, Germany. tim.erren@uni-koeln.de
Christine B Glende
Peter Morfeld
Claus Piekarski
University of Cologne · DEEvonik (Germany) · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis report investigates epidemiologically whether exposure to silica is associated with lung cancer risks in individuals without silicosis.

methodsWe searched the PubMed reference data base from 1966 through 1/2007 for reports of lung cancer in silica-exposed persons without and with silicosis. To explore heterogeneity between studies, a multi-stage strategy was employed. First, fixed-effect summaries (FES) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for various combinations of studies were calculated, weighting individual results by their precision. The homogeneity of the contributing results was examined using chi(2) statistics. Where there was evidence of substantial heterogeneity, the CI around the FES was increased to take account of the between-study variability. Random-effect summaries and their CI for identical combinations of studies were also computed. Meta regression was used to explore interactions with covariates. To draw comparisons, parallel analyses were performed for non-silicotics and for silicotics.

resultsThe persistence of a significant link between silicosis and lung cancer since the characterisation in 1997 of silica as a human carcinogen [our estimates of lung cancer relative risks (RR) exceeded unity in each of 38 eligible studies of silicotics published until 1/2007, averaging 2.1 in analyses based on both fixed and random effect models (95% CI = (2.0-2.3) and (1.9-2.3), respectively)] does not resolve our study question, namely whether exposure to silica levels below those required to induce silicosis are carcinogenic. Importantly, our detailed examination of 11 studies of lung cancer in silica-exposed individuals without silicosis included only three with data allowing adjustment for smoking habits. They yielded a pooled RR estimate of 1.0 [95% CI = (0.8-1.3)]. The other eight studies, with no adjustment for smoking habits, suggested a marginally elevated risk of lung cancer [RR = 1.2; 95% CI (1.1-1.4)], but with significant heterogeneity between studies (P approximately 0.05).

conclusionsNecessary further research should concentrate on silica exposures both above and below those that induce silicosis, so that the shape of the exposure-response relationship may be identified, with adjustments for likely confounding factors including silicosis. Time-dependent information on silicosis and on silica dust is required as well as the application of methods like G-estimation to answer the important public health question: Is silicosis a necessary condition for the elevation of silica-associated lung cancer risks?

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsBiasCarcinogensComorbidityDose-Response Relationship, DrugEpidemiologic StudiesHumansOccupational ExposureRisk FactorsSilicon DioxideSilicosisCarcinogensSilicon Dioxide

Identifiers

PMID19066933
OpenAlexW1971128480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.