Ionising radiation in the workplace.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Revisiting an Inverse Dose-Fractionation Effect of Ionizing Radiation Exposure for Ischemic Heart Disease: Insights from Recent Studies.Radiation research · 2024
   Review
2. Low-Dose Extrapolation Factors Implied by Mortality and Incidence Data from the Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivor Life Span Study Data.Radiation research · 2022
   Article
3. Risk of cancer associated with low-dose radiation exposure: comparison of results between the INWORKS nuclear workers study and the A-bomb survivors study.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2021
   Article
4. Lifetime Mortality Risk from Cancer and Circulatory Disease Predicted from the Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivor Life Span Study Data Taking Account of Dose Measurement Error.Radiation research · 2020
   Article
5. Medical radiation workers' knowledge, attitude, and practice to protect themselves against ionizing radiation in Tehran Province, Iran.Journal of education and health promotion · 2017
   Article
6. Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science (with Commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher Busby and a Reply by the Authors).Biological theory
   Article
7. Preserving the Anti-Scientific Linear No-Threshold Myth: Authority, Agnosticism, Transparency, and the Standard of Care.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Risk of cancer from occupational exposure to ionising radiation: retrospective cohort study of workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS).2015

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as