SynthesisRadiation and environmental biophysics2020
Meta-analysis of published excess relative risk estimates.
Synthesis in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Moon, Mars and Minds: Evaluating Parkinson's disease mortality among U.S. radiation workers and veterans in the million person study of low-dose effects.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2024Pooled it
- Radon exposure and potential health effects other than lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Ionizing radiation exposure during adulthood and risk of developing central nervous system tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Early life ionizing radiation exposure and cancer risks: systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Mortality burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in East Africa: pooled analysis of modelled estimates.Tropical medicine and health · 2025Article
- Risk of Developing Non-Cancerous Central Nervous System Diseases Due to Ionizing Radiation Exposure during Adulthood: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.Brain sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A meta-analytic summary effect estimate often is calculated as an inverse-variance-weighted average of study-specific estimates of association. The variances of published estimates of association often are derived from their associated confidence intervals under assumptions typical of Wald-type statistics, such as normality of the parameter. However, in some research areas, such as radiation epidemiology, epidemiological results typically are obtained by fitting linear relative risk models, and associated likelihood-based confidence intervals are often asymmetric; consequently, reasonable estimates of variances associated with study-specific estimates of association may be difficult to infer from the standard approach based on the assumption of a Wald-type interval. Here, a novel method is described for meta-analysis of published results from linear relative risk models that uses a parametric transformation of published results to improve on the normal approximation used to assess confidence intervals. Using simulations, it is illustrated that the meta-analytic summary obtained using the proposed approach yields less biased summary estimates, with better confidence interval coverage, than the summary obtained using the more classical approach to meta-analysis. The proposed approach is illustrated using a previously published example of meta-analysis of epidemiological findings regarding circulatory disease following exposure to low-level ionizing radiation.
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.