ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2012
Diesel exhaust in miners study: how to understand the findings?
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study provides no evidence for an increase in risk for lung cancer in miners exposed to diesel engine emissions.European journal of epidemiology · 2018Article
- Challenges and Opportunities for Occupational Epidemiology in the Twenty-first Century.Current environmental health reports · 2017Review
- Diesel engine exhaust and lung cancer risks - evaluation of the meta-analysis by Vermeulen et al. 2014.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2015Article
- Occupational Exposure to Diesel Motor Exhaust and Lung Cancer: A Dose-Response Relationship Hidden by Asbestos Exposure Adjustment? The ICARE Study.Journal of cancer epidemiology · 2015Article
- Diesel motor exhaust and lung cancer mortality: reanalysis of a cohort study in potash miners.European journal of epidemiology · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS) is an outstanding epidemiological project on the association between occupational diesel exhaust exposures, measured as long-term respirable elemental carbon (REC) estimates, and lung cancer mortality in a large cohort of US miners. Two articles published recently (Attfield et al. (J Natl Cancer Inst Epub, 2012), Silverman et al. (J Natl Cancer Inst Epub, 2012)) dsescribed the epidemiological findings. These papers are expected to have considerable impact on the evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of diesel exhaust and, furthermore, on occupational and environmental limit value discussions related to diesel motor emissions and particle exposures. DEMS found remarkable exposure-response relationships between REC exposure estimates and lung cancer mortality - conditional on a pronounced effect of surface vs. underground work on lung cancer risk. If this risk factor is ignored the estimated REC-lung cancer association is attenuated substantially. The authors relied on this risk factor in their main analyses. However, this factor "surface/underground work" remained unexplained. The factor lead the authors to introduce unusual cross-product terms of location and smoking in adjustment procedures and even caused the authors to hypothesize that high REC exposures are protective against lung cancer excess risks due to smoking. To understand the reliability of these conclusions, we should ask basic questions about the data collection process in DEMS: Did the mortality follow-up procedures suffer from errors like those that affected the NCI formaldehyde cohort study? Are the REC and/or smoking data reliable, and are these data collected/constructed in such a way that the procedures allow valid comparisons between surface and underground workers? Without clarifying the issues raised in this Commentary the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study remains to be difficult to interpret.
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.