Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25857246›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2015

Reanalysis of the DEMS nested case-control study of lung cancer and diesel exhaust: suitability for quantitative risk assessment.

Kenny S Crump, Cynthia Van Landingham, Suresh H Moolgavkar, Roger McClellan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. THE AUTHOR REPLIES.American journal of epidemiology · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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) · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kenny S CrumpRuston, LA, USA.
Cynthia Van LandinghamENVIRON International Corp, 1900 North 18th Street Suite 804, Monroe, LA, USA.
Suresh H MoolgavkarExponent, Inc, Bellevue, WA, and Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Roger McClellanAlbuquerque, NM, USA.
ENVIRON (United States) · USMenlo School · USNetwork Foundation Technologies (United States) · USRadiology Associates of Albuquerque · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2012 upgraded its hazard characterization of diesel engine exhaust (DEE) to "carcinogenic to humans." The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS) cohort and nested case-control studies of lung cancer mortality in eight U.S. nonmetal mines were influential in IARC's determination. We conducted a reanalysis of the DEMS case-control data to evaluate its suitability for quantitative risk assessment (QRA). Our reanalysis used conditional logistic regression and adjusted for cigarette smoking in a manner similar to the original DEMS analysis. However, we included additional estimates of DEE exposure and adjustment for radon exposure. In addition to applying three DEE exposure estimates developed by DEMS, we applied six alternative estimates. Without adjusting for radon, our results were similar to those in the original DEMS analysis: all but one of the nine DEE exposure estimates showed evidence of an association between DEE exposure and lung cancer mortality, with trend slopes differing only by about a factor of two. When exposure to radon was adjusted, the evidence for a DEE effect was greatly diminished, but was still present in some analyses that utilized the three original DEMS DEE exposure estimates. A DEE effect was not observed when the six alternative DEE exposure estimates were utilized and radon was adjusted. No consistent evidence of a DEE effect was found among miners who worked only underground. This article highlights some issues that should be addressed in any use of the DEMS data in developing a QRA for DEE.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesHumansLung NeoplasmsRisk AssessmentUnited StatesVehicle EmissionsVehicle EmissionsDiesel engine exhaustlung cancernonmetal minesrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID25857246
PMCPMC4690516
OpenAlexW1602524648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.