ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2021
Mesothelioma risk among those exposed to chrysotile asbestos only and mixtures that include amphibole: a case-control study in the USA, 1975-1980.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human Exposure to Asbestos in Central Asian Countries and Health Effects: A Narrative Review.La Medicina del lavoro · 2024Pooled it
- Global burden of lung cancer attributable to occupational asbestos exposure: 1990 to 2021.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Article
- Burden of malignant mesothelioma in China during 1990-2019 and the projections through 2029.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2024Article
- Exposure to cosmetic talc and mesothelioma.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOccupational asbestos exposure is causally linked to mesothelioma. However, whether exposure to only chrysotile asbestos is associated with mesothelioma risk, and the heterogeneity in risk by different fibre types/lengths remains unclear. We investigated whether mesothelioma risk differs among workers exposed to only chrysotile asbestos compared with chrysotile and ≥1 amphibole (ie, amosite, tremolite, anthophyllite and crocidolite) over the working lifetime.
methodsWe analysed next-of-kin interview data including occupational histories for 580 white men (176 cases and 404 controls) from a case-control study of mesothelioma conducted in the USA in 1975-1980. Asbestos exposure was determined by an occupational hygienist using a job-exposure matrix and exposure categories included chrysotile only and nine chrysotile-amphibole mixtures. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the ORs and 95% CIs of mesothelioma, comparing each asbestos category to the unexposed group, adjusted for age at death and data source. Analysis of contrasts was used to assess overall heterogeneity and pair-wise differences in risk.
resultsExposure to long and short chrysotile only was associated with increased mesothelioma risk compared with the unexposed (OR=3.8 (95% CI 1.3 to 11.2)). The complex mixture of extra-long amosite, short and long chrysotile, tremolite and anthophyllite was associated with the highest risk (OR=12.8 (95% CI 4.1 to 40.2)). There was evidence for overall heterogeneity among the asbestos exposure categories (p heterogeneity=0.02). However, the lower risk observed for exposure to chrysotile only compared with the complex mixture was not significant (p difference=0.10).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that policies aimed at regulating asbestos should target both pure chrysotile and mixtures that include amphibole.
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.