ArticleJournal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection2016
Doses for post-Chernobyl epidemiological studies: are they reliable?
Article in Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Natural radioactivity in Brazil: a systematic review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Radiation Exposure to the Thyroid After the Chernobyl Accident.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Review
- Article
- Chernobyl: more systematic research needed!European journal of epidemiology · 2017Article
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
On 26 April 2016, thirty years will have elapsed since the occurrence of the Chernobyl accident, which has so far been the most severe in the history of the nuclear reactor industry. Numerous epidemiological studies were conducted to evaluate the possible health consequences of the accident. Since the credibility of the association between the radiation exposure and health outcome is highly dependent on the adequacy of the dosimetric quantities used in these studies, this paper makes an effort to overview the methods used to estimate individual doses and the associated uncertainties in the main analytical epidemiological studies (i.e. cohort or case-control) related to the Chernobyl accident. Based on the thorough analysis and comparison with other radiation studies, the authors conclude that individual doses for the Chernobyl analytical epidemiological studies have been calculated with a relatively high degree of reliability and well-characterized uncertainties, and that they compare favorably with many other non-Chernobyl studies. The major strengths of the Chernobyl studies are: (1) they are grounded on a large number of measurements, either performed on humans or made in the environment; and (2) extensive effort has been invested to evaluate the uncertainties associated with the dose estimates. Nevertheless, gaps in the methodology are identified and suggestions for the possible improvement of the current dose estimates are made.
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.