Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26937249›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2016

An updated re-analysis of the mortality risk from nasopharyngeal cancer in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde worker cohort study.

Gary M Marsh, Peter Morfeld, Sarah D Zimmerman, Yimeng Liu, Lauren C Balmert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

5 authors.

Gary M MarshCenter for Occupational Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 USA.
Peter MorfeldInstitute and Policlinic for Occupational Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Preventive Research, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany ; Institute for Occupational Epidemiology and Risk Assessment of Evonik Industries, Essen, Germany.
Sarah D ZimmermanCenter for Occupational Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 USA.
Yimeng LiuCenter for Occupational Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 USA.
Lauren C BalmertCenter for Occupational Biostatistics and Epidemiology and Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, 130 DeSoto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo determine whether the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) suggestion of a persistent increased mortality risk for nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) in relation to formaldehyde (FA) exposure is robust with respect to alternative methods of data analysis.

methodsNCI provided the cohort data updated through 2004. We computed U.S. and local county rate-based standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and internal cohort rate-based relative risks (RR) in relation to four formaldehyde exposure metrics (highest peak, average intensity, cumulative, and duration of exposure), using both NCI categories and alternative categorizations. We modeled the plant group-related interaction structure using continuous and categorical forms of each FA exposure metric and evaluated the impact of NCI's decision to exclude non-exposed workers from the baseline category.

resultsOverall, our results corroborate the findings of our earlier reanalyses of data from the 1994 NCI cohort update. Six of 11 NPC deaths observed in the NCI study occurred in Plant 1, two (including the only additional NPC death) occurred in Plant 3 among workers in the lowest exposure category of highest peak, average intensity and cumulative FA exposure and in the second exposure category of duration of exposure, and the remaining cases occurred individually in three of eight remaining plants. A large, statistically significant, local rate-based NPC SMR of 7.34 (95 % CI = 2.69-15.97) among FA-exposed workers in Plant 1 contrasted with an 18 % deficit in NPC deaths (SMR = 0.82, 95 % CI = .17-2.41) among exposed workers in Plants 2-10. Overall, the new NCI findings led to: (1) reduced SMRs and RRs in the remaining nine study plants in unaffected exposure categories, (2) attenuated exposure-response relations for FA and NPC for all the FA metrics considered and (3) strengthened and expanded evidence that the earlier NCI internal analyses were non-robust and mis-specified as they did not account for a statistically significant interaction structure between plant group (Plant 1 vs. Plants 2-10) and FA exposure.

conclusionsOur updated reanalysis provided little or no evidence to support NCI's suggestion of a persistent association between FA exposure and mortality from NPC. NCI's suggestion continues to be driven heavily by anomalous findings in one study plant (Plant 1).

Indexed as

Cohort mortality studyFormaldehydeNasopharyngeal cancerNational Cancer InstituteOccupational healthReanalyses

Identifiers

PMID26937249
PMCPMC4774098

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.