ArticleAnnals of occupational and environmental medicine2018
Thyroid cancer among female workers in Korea, 2007-2015.
Article in Annals of occupational and environmental medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thyroid Cancer Diagnostics Related to Occupational and Environmental Risk Factors: An Integrated Risk Assessment Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Thyroid cancer risks among medical radiation workers in South Korea, 1996-2015.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevalence of thyroid cancer has been increasing rapidly worldwide, especially among women. There has been a debate as to whether such an increase represents consequences of over-diagnosis or a true increase. To find the occupational risk of Korean female workers in different industry sectors, we analyzed the data of Korean female workers.
methodsNational Female Worker Cohort data that contain information on total female workers were used for our analysis of prevalence of thyroid cancer (C73 according to KCD-5, 6 code) derived from National Health Insurance data. By combining industrial codes from National Health Insurance Service and those from Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, the classification of industrial codes became to consist of the total of thirty three representing both non-office (NO) and office (O) categories. Both an internal comparison among female workers within the cohort and an external comparison to compare female workers with Korean general female population were carried out.
resultsAmong 149,258 female workers, 2,641 cases of thyroid cancers were identified. Differences in prevalence of thyroid cancer between female workers (40.5%) and general Korean female population (32.6%) were observed; however, the differences in prevalence of thyroid cancer between NO workers and O workers were not apparent. An analysis involving workers in Financial and insurance activities sector revealed that, standardized prevalence rate (SPR) of both NO (2.96, 95% CI = 2.01-4.20) and O workers (3.68, 95% CI = 3.10-4.33) increased significantly and that an AOR (adjusted odds ratio) increased marginally (1.38, 95% CI = 0.97-1.96). Further, when stratified in respect to the duration of employment, an AOR of female workers having been employed for more than 8 years showed a significant increase (1.63, 95% CI = 1.07-2.49).
conclusionsFemale workers had a higher risk of thyroid cancer than general female population but the difference between NO workers and O workers was not found to be significant in most industrial sectors. Further studies using data with information regarding specific occupational exposures are needed.
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.