ReviewJournal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs2020
Strengths and Weaknesses of Dosimetry Used in Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer.
Review in Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Cancer: Summary Bias Assessment and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020Pooled it
- Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Cancer: Rationale and Framework for the Monograph and Overview of Eligible Studies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020Pooled it
- Evaluation of Confounding and Selection Bias in Epidemiological Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020Pooled it
- Risk of incident stroke and heart disease subtypes in a nationwide cohort of Korean radiation workers.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2025Article
- Comparison of radiation-related cancer risks from the atomic bomb survivors with studies of pediatric medical radiation exposure.Carcinogenesis · 2025Article
- A Critical Appraisal of System-Reported Organ Dose (OD) Versus Manually Calculated Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) in Dubai's Mammography Services.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A Historical Survey of Key Epidemiological Studies of Ionizing Radiation Exposure.Radiation research · 2024Review
- A generalisation of the method of regression calibration and comparison with Bayesian and frequentist model averaging methods.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- A generalisation of the method of regression calibration and comparison with the Bayesian 2-dimensional Monte Carlo method.Research square · 2023Article
- A generalisation of the method of regression calibration.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A generalisation of the method of regression calibration.Research square · 2023Article
- Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses.Environment international · 2022Review
- Age effects on radiation response: summary of a recent symposium and future perspectives.International journal of radiation biology · 2022Article
- A review of studies of childhood cancer and natural background radiation.International journal of radiation biology · 2021Review
- Summary of Radiation Research Society Online 66th Annual Meeting, Symposium on "Epidemiology: Updates on epidemiological low dose studies," including discussion.International journal of radiation biology · 2021Article
- Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Article
- Issues in Interpreting Epidemiologic Studies of Populations Exposed to Low-Dose, High-Energy Photon Radiation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2020Review
- Outcome Assessment in Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Radiation Exposure and Cancer Risks: Sources, Level of Ascertainment, and Misclassification.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA monograph systematically evaluating recent evidence on the dose-response relationship between low-dose ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risk required a critical appraisal of dosimetry methods in 26 potentially informative studies.
methodsThe relevant literature included studies published in 2006-2017. Studies comprised case-control and cohort designs examining populations predominantly exposed to sparsely ionizing radiation, mostly from external sources, resulting in average doses of no more than 100 mGy. At least two dosimetrists reviewed each study and appraised the strengths and weaknesses of the dosimetry systems used, including assessment of sources and effects of dose estimation error. An overarching concern was whether dose error might cause the spurious appearance of a dose-response where none was present.
resultsThe review included 8 environmental, 4 medical, and 14 occupational studies that varied in properties relative to evaluation criteria. Treatment of dose estimation error also varied among studies, although few conducted a comprehensive evaluation. Six studies appeared to have known or suspected biases in dose estimates. The potential for these biases to cause a spurious dose-response association was constrained to three case-control studies that relied extensively on information gathered in interviews conducted after case ascertainment.
conclusionsThe potential for spurious dose-response associations from dose information appeared limited to case-control studies vulnerable to recall errors that may be differential by case status. Otherwise, risk estimates appeared reasonably free of a substantial bias from dose estimation error. Future studies would benefit from a comprehensive evaluation of dose estimation errors, including methods accounting for their potential effects on dose-response associations.
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.