ArticleBMJ open2018
Cohort study of workers at a New Zealand agrochemical plant to assess the effect of dioxin exposure on mortality.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Review
- Development of a Questionnaire for the Search for Occupational Causes in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: The RHELYPRO Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe how the exposure to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
designA cohort study.
settingAn agrochemical plant in New Zealand
participants1,599 men and women working between 1 January 1969 and 1 November 1988 at a plant producing the herbicide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) with TCDD as a contaminant. Cumulative TCDD exposure was estimated for each individual in the study by a toxicokinetic model. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Calculation of cause-specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI's) compared those never and ever exposed to TCDD. Dose-response trends were assessed firstly through SMRs stratified in quartiles of cumulative TCCD exposure, and secondly with a proportional hazards model.
resultsThe model intercept of 5.1 ppt of TCDD was consistent with background TCDD concentrations in New Zealand among older members of the population. Exposed workers had non-significant increases in all-cancer deaths (SMR=1.08, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.34), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SMR=1.57, 95% CI: 0.32 to 4.59), soft tissue sarcoma (one death) (SMR=2.38, 95% CI: 0.06 to 13.26), diabetes (SMR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.55 to 2.50) and ischaemic heart disease (SMR=1.21, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.50). Lung cancer deaths (SMR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.53) were fewer than expected. Neither the stratified SMR nor the proportional hazard analysis showed a dose-response relationship.
conclusionThere was no evidence of an increase in risk for 'all cancers', any specific cancer and no systematic trend in cancer risk with TCDD exposure. This argues against the carcinogenicity of TCDD at lower levels of exposure.
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.