Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36703177›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2023

Response to Toshihide Tsuda, Yumiko Miyano and Eiji Yamamoto [1].

Joachim Schüz, Evgenia Ostroumova, Ausrele Kesminiene, Louise Davies, Hyeong Sik Ahn, Kayo Togawa, Salvatore Vaccarella

Abstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Joachim SchüzInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organisation (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Evgenia OstroumovaInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organisation (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France. ostroumovae@iarc.who.int.
Ausrele KesminieneInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organisation (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.
Louise DaviesDepartment of Surgery-Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA.
Hyeong Sik AhnDepartment of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.
Kayo TogawaNational Cancer Center Institute for Cancer Control, Tokyo, Japan.
Salvatore VaccarellaInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organisation (IARC/WHO), Lyon, France.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing a toolkit approach, Tsuda et al. critiqued work carried out by or in collaboration with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC/WHO), including the IARC technical publication No. 46 on "Thyroid health monitoring after nuclear accidents" (TM-NUC), the project on nuclear emergency situations and improvement on medical and health surveillance (SHAMISEN), and the IARC-led work on global thyroid cancer incidence patterns as per IARC core mandate. MAIN BODY: We respond on the criticism of the recommendations of the IARC technical publication No. 46, and of global thyroid cancer incidence evaluation.

conclusionAfter nuclear accidents, overdiagnosis can still happen and must be included in informed decision making when providing a system of optimal help for cases of radiation-induced thyroid cancer, to minimize harm to people by helping them avoid diagnostics and treatment they may not need.

Indexed as

Neoplasms, Radiation-InducedThyroid NeoplasmsHumansIncidenceIncidenceNuclear accidentOverdiagnosisThyroid cancer

Identifiers

PMID36703177
PMCPMC9878754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.