ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2021
Aggregated cumulative county arsenic in drinking water and associations with bladder, colorectal, and kidney cancers, accounting for population served.
Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Heavy metal carcinogenicity: a scoping review of observational & experimental evidence.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- County-level associations between drinking water PFAS contamination and COVID-19 mortality in the United States.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025Article
- Health implications of safe drinking water act violations: a county-level analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Spatial and temporal distribution of arsenic concentration in rural drinking water and health risk assessment in Northern China from 2013 to 2022: a case study of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Landscape analysis of environmental data sources for linkage with SEER cancer patients database.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024Article
- Prioritizing water availability study settings to address geogenic contaminants and related societal factors.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2024Article
- Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Arsenic and cancer: Evidence and mechanisms.Advances in pharmacology (San Diego, Calif.) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany studies neglect to account for variation in population served by community water systems (CWSs) when aggregating CWS-level contaminant concentrations to county level.
objectiveIn an ecological epidemiologic analysis, we explored two methods-unweighted and weighted (proportion of CWS population served by county population)-to account for population served by CWS in association between arsenic and three cancers to determine the impact of population served on aggregated measures of exposure.
methodsCWS arsenic concentration data for 19 states were obtained from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network for 2000-10, aggregated to county level, and linked to county-level cancer data for 2011-5 from National Cancer Institute and CDC State Cancer Profiles. Negative binomial regression models estimated adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) between county-level bladder, colorectal, and kidney cancers and quartiles of aggregated cumulative county-level arsenic concentration (ppb-years).
resultsWe observed positive associations between the highest quartile of exposure, compared to the lowest, of aggregated cumulative county-level arsenic concentration (ppb-year) for bladder [weighted aRR: 1.89(1.53, 2.35)], colorectal [1.64(1.33, 2.01)], and kidney [1.69(1.37, 2.09)] cancers. We observed stronger associations utilizing the weighted exposure assessment method. However, inferences from this study are limited due to the ecologic nature of the analyses and different analytic study designs are needed to assess the utility that the weighted by CWS population served metric has for exposure assessment. SIGNIFICANCE: Weighting by CWS population served accounts for some potential exposure assignment error in epidemiologic analysis.
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.