ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2018
The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study provides no evidence for an increase in risk for lung cancer in miners exposed to diesel engine emissions.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of occupational exposure to diesel particulate matter through evaluation of 1-nitropyrene and 1-aminopyrene in surface coal miners, India.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2021Article
- Objectives, design and main findings until 2020 from the Rotterdam Study.European journal of epidemiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study is unquestionably the most suitable data material to date to examine a possible link between diesel engine emissions and lung cancer risk. But the results do not appear to be consistent in themselves. The crucial methodological problem in this study, however, has yet to be discovered, to which the lack of any description of age related information (year of birth, year of hire, year of first exposure, year of death) for the cohort as well as for the cases might have contributed. This information is important to understand the flaws in the analysis. It turns out that the year of birth is associated with the exposure, i.e. with the chance to be exposed over a certain period of time as well as with the chance to be an ever-smoker. A further important issue for the interpretation of the results is the validity of the data on smoking, which are mainly obtained from next of kin for decedents up to 50 years after death. Taking all these aspects into account, it can be concluded that only the SMR-analysis can be considered from all published results.
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.