Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31360689›Full record

ReviewJournal of cancer prevention2019

Occupational Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

Srmena Krstev, Anders Knutsson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cancer prevention, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Cancer and occupational exposure to pesticides: an umbrella review.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Shift Work and Prostate Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Prostate Cancer: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment.Serican journal of medicine · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Smoking and the risk of prostate cancer: a review of risk and disease progression.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Srmena KrstevSerbian Institute of Occupational Health, Belgrade, Serbia.
Anders KnutssonDepartment of Health Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. There are many occupational factors that have been suggested to cause prostate cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the evidence for causality by a literature review of occupational factors. We searched literature in Medline and SCOPUS from 1966 to June 30, 2015 to identify occupational risk factors for prostate cancer. The following risk factors were selected: farmers/agricultural workers, pesticides - whole group, and separately organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides, carbamates and triazines, cadmium, chromium, cutting fluids, acrylonitrile, rubber manufacturing, whole body vibration, shift work, flight personnel, ionizing radiation, and occupational physical activity. For each factor a literature search was performed and presented as meta-analysis of relative risk and heterogeneity (Q and I

Indexed as

Causal associationEpidemiologic studiesExposure assessmentLiterature searchWork-place factors

Identifiers

PMID31360689
PMCPMC6619854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.