Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26269706›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2015

Diesel engine exhaust and lung cancer risks - evaluation of the meta-analysis by Vermeulen et al. 2014.

Peter Morfeld, Michael Spallek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Lung cancer risk in never-smokers: An overview of environmental and genetic factors.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2021
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Peter MorfeldInstitute and Policlinic for Occupational Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Prevention Research of Cologne University, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Köln, Germany ; Institute for Occupational Epidemiology and Risk Assessment (IERA) of Evonik Industries AG, Rellinghauser Str. 1-11, D-45128 Essen, Germany.
Michael SpallekInstitute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine of the Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany ; European Research Group on Environment and Health in the Transport Sector (EUGT e.V.), Fritschestr. 35, 10627 Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVermeulen et al. 2014 published a meta-regression analysis of three relevant epidemiological US studies (Steenland et al. 1998, Garshick et al. 2012, Silverman et al. 2012) that estimated the association between occupational diesel engine exhaust (DEE) exposure and lung cancer mortality. The DEE exposure was measured as cumulative exposure to estimated respirable elemental carbon in μg/m(3)-years. Vermeulen et al. 2014 found a statistically significant dose-response association and described elevated lung cancer risks even at very low exposures.

methodsWe performed an extended re-analysis using different modelling approaches (fixed and random effects regression analyses, Greenland/Longnecker method) and explored the impact of varying input data (modified coefficients of Garshick et al. 2012, results from Crump et al. 2015 replacing Silverman et al. 2012, modified analysis of Moehner et al. 2013).

resultsWe reproduced the individual and main meta-analytical results of Vermeulen et al. 2014. However, our analysis demonstrated a heterogeneity of the baseline relative risk levels between the three studies. This heterogeneity was reduced after the coefficients of Garshick et al. 2012 were modified while the dose coefficient dropped by an order of magnitude for this study and was far from being significant (P = 0.6). A (non-significant) threshold estimate for the cumulative DEE exposure was found at 150 μg/m(3)-years when extending the meta-analyses of the three studies by hockey-stick regression modelling (including the modified coefficients for Garshick et al. 2012). The data used by Vermeulen and colleagues led to the highest relative risk estimate across all sensitivity analyses performed. The lowest relative risk estimate was found after exclusion of the explorative study by Steenland et al. 1998 in a meta-regression analysis of Garshick et al. 2012 (modified), Silverman et al. 2012 (modified according to Crump et al. 2015) and Möhner et al. 2013. The meta-coefficient was estimated to be about 10-20 % of the main effect estimate in Vermeulen et al. 2014 in this analysis.

conclusionsThe findings of Vermeulen et al. 2014 should not be used without reservations in any risk assessments. This is particularly true for the low end of the exposure scale.

Indexed as

DEEDieselEpidemiologyLung cancerMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID26269706
PMCPMC4534113

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.