ReviewEnvironmental health : a global access science source2022
Demonstrating the undermining of science and health policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident by applying the Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods.
Review in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strengthening global science: The role of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) in bridging science and policy.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Exposing additional authors who suppress evidence about radiation-induced thyroid cancer in children: a Comment adding to Tsuda et al.'s response to Schüz et al. (2023).Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Article
- Article
- Mistaken information can lead only to misguided conclusions and policies: a commentary regarding Schüz et al.'s response.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Article
- Response to Tsuda et al. "demonstrating the undermining of science and health policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident by applying the toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods".Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Article
- Response to Toshihide Tsuda, Yumiko Miyano and Eiji Yamamoto [1].Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023Article
- Response to Toshihide Tsuda, Yumiko Miyano and Eiji Yamamoto [1].Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is well known that science can be misused to hinder the resolution (i.e., the elimination and/or control) of a health problem. To recognize distorted and misapplied epidemiological science, a 33-item "Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods" (hereinafter, the Toolkit) was published in 2021. Applying the Toolkit, we critically evaluated a review paper entitled, "Lessons learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima on thyroid cancer screening and recommendations in the case of a future nuclear accident" in Environment International in 2021, published by the SHAMISEN (Nuclear Emergency Situations - Improvement of Medical and Health Surveillance) international expert consortium. The article highlighted the claim that overdiagnosis of childhood thyroid cancers greatly increased the number of cases detected in ultrasound thyroid screening following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. However, the reasons cited in the SHAMISEN review paper for overdiagnosis in mass screening lacked important information about the high incidence of thyroid cancers after the accident. The SHAMISEN review paper ignored published studies of screening results in unexposed areas, and included an invalid comparison of screenings among children with screenings among adults. The review omitted the actual state of screening in Fukushima after the nuclear accident, in which only nodules > 5 mm in diameter were examined. The growth rate of thyroid cancers was not slow, as emphasized in the SHAMISEN review paper; evidence shows that cancers detected in second-round screening grew to more than 5 mm in diameter over a 2-year period. The SHAMISEN consortium used an unfounded overdiagnosis hypothesis and misguided evidence to refute that the excess incidence of thyroid cancer was attributable to the nuclear accident, despite the findings of ongoing ultrasound screening for thyroid cancer in Fukushima and around Chernobyl. By our evaluation, the SHAMISEN review paper includes 20 of the 33 items in the Toolkit that demonstrate the misuse of epidemiology. The International Agency for Research on Cancer meeting in 2017 and its publication cited in the SHAMISEN review paper includes 12 of the 33 items in the Toolkit. Finally, we recommend a few enhancements to the Toolkit to increase its utility.
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.