ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2012
Lung cancer and diesel exhaust: an updated critical review of the occupational epidemiology literature.
Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- Environmental risk factors, protective factors and lifestyles for lung cancer: an umbrella review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Psychoactive drug consumption among truck-drivers: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis and meta-regression.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2019Pooled it
- Patterns of Harmful Alcohol Consumption among Truck Drivers: Implications for Occupational Health and Work Safety from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Pooled it
- Diesel exhaust exposure and the risk of lung cancer--a review of the epidemiological evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2014Pooled it
- Invited Perspective: Diesel Exhaust and Lung Cancer-Delayed Findings Confirmed, but Consequences Continue.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Effects of Diesel Exhaust Particles on Mouse Gastric Stem Cells.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Cancer Incidence Trends in the Oil Shale Industrial Region in Estonia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- A Comparison of the Health Effects of Ambient Particulate Matter Air Pollution from Five Emission Sources.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Review
- Reanalysis of Diesel Engine Exhaust and Lung Cancer Mortality in the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study Cohort Using Alternative Exposure Estimates and Radon Adjustment.American journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Challenges and Opportunities for Occupational Epidemiology in the Twenty-first Century.Current environmental health reports · 2017Review
- Biodiesel from soybean promotes cell proliferation in vitro.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2016Article
- Reducing the underreporting of lung cancer attributable to occupation: outcomes from a hospital-based systematic search in Northern Italy.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2016Article
- Reanalysis of the DEMS nested case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust: suitability for quantitative risk assessment.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2015Article
- Occupational exposure and lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2013Review
- Diesel motor exhaust and lung cancer mortality: reanalysis of a cohort study in potash miners.European journal of epidemiology · 2013Article
- A comparison of occupational and non-occupational exposure to diesel exhausts and its consequences for studying health effects.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2012Article
- Health effects research and regulation of diesel exhaust: an historical overview focused on lung cancer risk.Inhalation toxicology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent review concluded that the evidence from epidemiology studies was indeterminate and that additional studies were required to support the diesel exhaust-lung cancer hypothesis. This updated review includes seven recent studies. Two population-based studies concluded that significant exposure-response (E-R) trends between cumulative diesel exhaust and lung cancer were unlikely to be entirely explained by bias or confounding. Those studies have quality data on life-style risk factors, but do not allow definitive conclusions because of inconsistent E-R trends, qualitative exposure estimates and exposure misclassification (insufficient latency based on job title), and selection bias from low participation rates. Non-definitive results are consistent with the larger body of population studies. An NCI/NIOSH cohort mortality and nested case-control study of non-metal miners have some surrogate-based quantitative diesel exposure estimates (including highest exposure measured as respirable elemental carbon (REC) in the workplace) and smoking histories. The authors concluded that diesel exhaust may cause lung cancer. Nonetheless, the results are non-definitive because the conclusions are based on E-R patterns where high exposures were deleted to achieve significant results, where a posteriori adjustments were made to augment results, and where inappropriate adjustments were made for the "negative confounding" effects of smoking even though current smoking was not associated with diesel exposure and therefore could not be a confounder. Three cohort studies of bus drivers and truck drivers are in effect air pollution studies without estimates of diesel exhaust exposure and so are not sufficient for assessing the lung cancer-diesel exhaust hypothesis. Results from all occupational cohort studies with quantitative estimates of exposure have limitations, including weak and inconsistent E-R associations that could be explained by bias, confounding or chance, exposure misclassification, and often inadequate latency. In sum, the weight of evidence is considered inadequate to confirm the diesel-lung cancer hypothesis.
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.