ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2022
Lung cancer incidence among workers biologically monitored for occupational exposure to lead: a cohort study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Occupational Lead Exposure on Lung Cancer Risk in Korean Male Workers: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Combined Occupational Exposure to Lead and Other Metals and Risk of Lung Cancer.La Medicina del lavoro · 2026Article
- Validation of JEM Soignances Job-Exposure Matrix Through Comparison with Self-Reported Exposures Among Healthcare Workers in CONSTANCES.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Community Factors and County-Level Cancer Screening, Prevalence, and Mortality.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Nutrition, Lifestyle, and Environmental Factors in Lung Homeostasis and Respiratory Health.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Five decades of occupational cancer epidemiology.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEarlier studies have reported increased risks of lung, kidney and brain cancers for exposure to lead. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Working Group evaluated inorganic lead and its compounds probably carcinogenic to humans. This study aimed to assess the association between blood lead level in occupational exposure and risk of lung cancer.
methodsThe study was based on the follow-up of lung cancer incidence during 1973-2014 among 20 729 employees biologically monitored for their occupational lead exposure in 1973-1983. Duration of employment in the monitored work was assessed using records from the Finnish Centre for Pensions; and potential confounding by other occupational carcinogens using longitudinal information on the occupation in censuses and the Finnish National Job-Exposure Matrix (FINJEM). Occupation- and gender-specific prevalence of regular tobacco smoking and the socioeconomic status were also utilized in the adjustments for potential confounding.
resultsPositive trends were found for the elevated blood lead levels on the lung cancer risk. Among employees with the duration of employment of ≥60 months, the relative risk (RR) of lung cancer was 1.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28-2.31] for mean blood lead 1.0-1.9 µmol/L and RR 2.63 (95% CI 1.71-4.05) for mean blood lead ≥2.0 µmol/L, compared with mean lead <0.5 µmol/L. The studied potential confounders did not explain the findings on the increased risk for lead exposure.
conclusionsThe current study lends support to the findings that exposure to lead increases lung cancer risk. Increased risks were seen already at rather low blood lead levels.
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.