ArticleBMJ open2013
Spatial analysis of health effects of large industrial incinerators in England, 1998-2008: a study using matched case-control areas.
Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodological approaches to the study of cancer risk in the vicinity of pollution sources: the experience of a population-based case-control study of childhood cancer.International journal of health geographics · 2019Article
- Estimating Particulate Exposure from Modern Municipal Waste Incinerators in Great Britain.Environmental science & technology · 2017Article
- A review of exposure assessment methods in epidemiological studies on incinerators.Journal of environmental and public health · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether residential proximity to industrial incinerators in England is associated with increased risk of cancer incidence and mortality.
designRetrospective study using matched case-control areas.
settingFive circular regions of radius 10 km near industrial incinerators in England (case regions) and five matched control regions, 1998-2008.
participantsAll cases of diseases of interest within the circular areas. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Counts of childhood cancer incidence (<15 years); childhood leukaemia incidence (<15 years); leukaemia incidence; liver cancer incidence; lung cancer incidence; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma incidence; all-cause mortality; infant mortality (<1 year) and liver cancer mortality.
resultsThe estimated relative risks for case circles versus control circles for the nine outcomes considered range from 0.94 to 1.14, and show neither elevated risk in case circles compared to control areas nor elevated risk with proximity to incinerators within case circles.
conclusionsThis study applies statistical methods for analysing spatially referenced health outcome data in regions with a hypothesised exposure relative to matched regions with no such exposure. There is no evidence of elevated risk of cancer incidence or mortality in the vicinity of large industrial incinerators in England.
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.