ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2014
Guidelines for exposure assessment in health risk studies following a nuclear reactor accident.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- Environmental pollution, a hidden culprit for health issues.Eco-Environment & Health · 2022Review
- Gilbert W. Beebe Symposium on 30 Years after the Chernobyl Accident: Current and Future Studies on Radiation Health Effects.Radiation research · 2018Article
- Doses for post-Chernobyl epidemiological studies: are they reliable?Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2016Article
- Meeting report: suggestions for studies on future health risks following the Fukushima accident.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2015Article
- Thyroid gland: Do nuclear power plants increase the risk of thyroid cancer?Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2014Article
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
Abstract
backgroundWorldwide concerns regarding health effects after the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear power plant accidents indicate a clear need to identify short- and long-term health impacts that might result from accidents in the future. Fundamental to addressing this problem are reliable and accurate radiation dose estimates for the affected populations. The available guidance for activities following nuclear accidents is limited with regard to strategies for dose assessment in health risk studies.
objectivesHere we propose a comprehensive systematic approach to estimating radiation doses for the evaluation of health risks resulting from a nuclear power plant accident, reflected in a set of seven guidelines. DISCUSSION: Four major nuclear reactor accidents have occurred during the history of nuclear power production. The circumstances leading to these accidents were varied, as were the magnitude of the releases of radioactive materials, the pathways by which persons were exposed, the data collected afterward, and the lifestyle factors and dietary consumption that played an important role in the associated radiation exposure of the affected populations. Accidents involving nuclear reactors may occur in the future under a variety of conditions. The guidelines we recommend here are intended to facilitate obtaining reliable dose estimations for a range of different exposure conditions. We recognize that full implementation of the proposed approach may not always be feasible because of other priorities during the nuclear accident emergency and because of limited resources in manpower and equipment.
conclusionsThe proposed approach can serve as a basis to optimize the value of radiation dose reconstruction following a nuclear reactor accident.
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.