ArticleJournal of environmental and public health2016
Arsenic in Drinking Water and Lung Cancer Mortality in the United States: An Analysis Based on US Counties and 30 Years of Observation (1950-1979).
Article in Journal of environmental and public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- The global burden of lung cancer: current status and future trends.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
- Curcumin prevents AsChinese medicine · 2021Article
- Paradoxical effects of arsenic in the lungs.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2021Review
- Influence of the Levels of Arsenic, Cadmium, Mercury and Lead on Overall Survival in Lung Cancer.Biomolecules · 2021Article
- A review of arsenic exposure and lung cancer.Toxicology research · 2019Review
- State of the science review of the health effects of inorganic arsenic: Perspectives for future research.Environmental toxicology · 2019Review
- A case-control study of trace-element status and lung cancer in Appalachian Kentucky.PloS one · 2019Article
- Lung Cancer Risk and Low (≤50 μg/L) Drinking Water Arsenic Levels for US Counties (2009⁻2013)-A Negative Association.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. To examine whether the US EPA (2010) lung cancer risk estimate derived from the high arsenic exposures (10-934 µg/L) in southwest Taiwan accurately predicts the US experience from low arsenic exposures (3-59 µg/L). Methods. Analyses have been limited to US counties solely dependent on underground sources for their drinking water supply with median arsenic levels of ≥3 µg/L. Results. Cancer risks (slopes) were found to be indistinguishable from zero for males and females. The addition of arsenic level did not significantly increase the explanatory power of the models. Stratified, or categorical, analysis yielded relative risks that hover about 1.00. The unit risk estimates were nonpositive and not significantly different from zero, and the maximum (95% UCL) unit risk estimates for lung cancer were lower than those in US EPA (2010). Conclusions. These data do not demonstrate an increased risk of lung cancer associated with median drinking water arsenic levels in the range of 3-59 µg/L. The upper-bound estimates of the risks are lower than the risks predicted from the SW Taiwan data and do not support those predictions. These results are consistent with a recent metaregression that indicated no increased lung cancer risk for arsenic exposures below 100-150 µg/L.
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.