Comment on "dose-responses from multi-model inference for the non-cancer disease mortality of atomic bomb survivors" (Radiat. Environ. Biophys (2012) 51:165-178) by Schöllnberger et al.

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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

1. Ionising radiation and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023
   Pooled it
2. Radiation and circulatory disease.Mutation research. Reviews in mutation research
   Pooled it
3. Dose-responses for mortality from cerebrovascular and heart diseases in atomic bomb survivors: 1950-2003.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2018
   Article
4. Cardiovascular diseases related to ionizing radiation: The risk of low-dose exposure (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2016
   Review
5. Circulatory disease mortality in the Massachusetts tuberculosis fluoroscopy cohort study.European journal of epidemiology · 2016
   Article
6. Ischemic heart disease in workers at Mayak PA: latency of incidence risk after radiation exposure.PloS one · 2014
   Article
7. A review of non-cancer effects, especially circulatory and ocular diseases.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2013
   Review
8. Reply to Little et al.: dose-responses from multi-model inference for the non-cancer disease mortality of atomic bomb survivors.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to Little et al.: dose-responses from multi-model inference for the non-cancer disease mortality of atomic bomb survivors.2013
• Comment on
  Dose-responses from multi-model inference for the non-cancer disease mortality of atomic bomb survivors.2012

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as