Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31111206›Full record

SynthesisInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2019

Ethylene oxide and risk of lympho-hematopoietic cancer and breast cancer: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Gary M Marsh, Kara A Keeton, Alexander S Riordan, Elizabeth A Best, Stacey M Benson

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Breast cancer and occupational exposures: an integrative review of the literature.Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gary M MarshCardno ChemRisk, 20 Stanwix Street, Suite 505, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222, USA.
Kara A KeetonCardno ChemRisk, 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3910, Chicago, IL, 60602, USA. kara.keeton@cardno.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5157-5627
Alexander S RiordanCardno ChemRisk, 30 N. LaSalle St., Suite 3910, Chicago, IL, 60602, USA.
Elizabeth A BestCardno ChemRisk, 4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 100, Boulder, CO, 80301, USA.
Stacey M BensonCardno ChemRisk, 20 Stanwix Street, Suite 505, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222, USA.
Cardinal Health (Australia) · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies of lympho-hematopoietic cancers (LHC) and breast cancer risk among persons occupationally exposed to ethylene oxide (EO).

methodsWe performed a literature search for articles available in PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify literature and subsequently systematically searched the reference lists of identified studies, published review papers and meta-analyses, as well as relevant government or regulatory documents. We qualitatively reviewed 30 studies and conducted meta-analyses on 13 studies. Pooled risk estimates were calculated using random effects models, stratifying by occupational group, cancer type and decade of publication.

resultsThe overall meta-relative risks (meta-RRs) for LHC and breast cancer, respectively, were 1.48 (95% CI 1.07-2.05) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.80-1.18). The meta-RR's for LHC among EO production and EO sterilization workers were 1.46 (95% CI 0.85-2.50) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.87-1.30), respectively. We observed higher risks of LHC in the earlier published studies, compared to the later studies, and the meta-RR's for the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and the 2010s, respectively, were 3.87 (95% CI 1.87-8.01), 1.38 (95% CI 0.85-2.25), 1.05 (95% CI 0.84-1.31), and 1.19 (95% CI 0.80-1.77).

conclusionsThe most informative epidemiology studies, which were published in the 2000s and 2010s, do not support the conclusion that exposure to EO is associated with an increased risk of LHC or breast cancer.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsChemical IndustryDisinfectantsEthylene OxideFemaleHematologic NeoplasmsHumansMaleOccupational ExposureRisk FactorsDisinfectantsEthylene OxideBreast cancerEpidemiologyEthylene oxideLymphohematopoietic cancersMeta-analysisOccupational exposure

Identifiers

PMID31111206
OpenAlexW2946215600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.