Observational studyThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2019
Stable Iodine Distribution Among Children After the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Disaster in Japan: An Observational Study.
Observational study in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stable Iodine Intake and Thyroid Screening Outcomes After the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: An Observational Study.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Observational
- Information-seeking behaviour of community pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic: an ecological study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- No significant association between stable iodine intake and thyroid dysfunction in children after the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: an observational study.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2021Observational
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIntake of stable iodine helps prevent childhood thyroid cancer in nuclear emergencies, but there is limited case information.
objectiveWe identified the intake rate and the factors associated with no intake among children who did not take stable iodine after the Fukushima disaster.
designRetrospective observational study.
settingData were obtained from thyroid cancer screenings performed from August through November 2017.
participantsChildren in Miharu Town, Fukushima, Japan.
interventionNo intervention.
main outcome measuresWe performed multilevel logistic regression analysis at the regional and individual levels. We qualitatively examined the reasons for no intake of stable iodine based on closed- and open-ended questions.
resultsThe rate of distribution was 94.9%, but the intake rate was only 63.5%. Intake was lower in those aged 0 to 2 years compared with those aged ≥3 years (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.36). Parents' intake was positively associated with their children's intake (OR, 61.0; 95% CI, 37.9 to 102.9). The variance partition coefficient for regions was 0.021, suggesting that the intake of stable iodine was more likely affected by individual than by regional factors. Closed-ended questions showed that the main reason for avoiding intake was concern about safety. Open-ended questions for other reasons revealed issues related to the distribution method, information about the effects and adverse effects of iodine, and instructions for iodine intake. There were no symptomatic adverse effects claimed to the town.
conclusionsThe distribution and consumption of stable iodine occurred in Miharu Town after the Fukushima disaster. To prepare for future nuclear emergencies, it is important to explain to both children and parents the need for intake of stable iodine, particularly among young children.
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.