ReviewToxicology and industrial health2025
An evaluation of trends for mesothelioma mortality in American women: Addressing the content of a recent Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).
Review in Toxicology and industrial health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mesothelioma is a fatal disease that has historically been associated with exposure to airborne asbestos. Because occupational asbestos exposures dropped dramatically in the late 1960s and early 1970s, far fewer cases of mesothelioma today are due to these fibers but, instead, are usually a result of the aging process or genetic predisposition. In May of 2022, a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding malignant mesothelioma incidence in women from 1999 to 2020. While this MMWR alerted citizens to the continued presence of the disease, after reading this article one might have thought that the CDC was suggesting that the disease was increasing in women due to asbestos exposures (which it is not). In the present analysis, we investigate several factors related to the interpretation of epidemiological data for mesothelioma, including the role of asbestos as a risk factor over time. The authors conducted a review of the scientific community's understanding of mesothelioma incidence and asbestos exposures amongst women, as well as an investigation of the methods and references in the MMWR article. Although various articles have recently discussed the incidence of both peritoneal and pleural mesothelioma in women, it is fortunate that the age-adjusted rates for mesothelioma have remained flat (neither increased nor decreased significantly) in women for the past 50 years. Incredibly few women in the U. S. have had appreciable cumulative exposures to any type of asbestos (chrysotile, amosite, or crocidolite) in the workplace or from the ambient environment, especially since about 1965-1970. In this paper, we highlight six factors that should be considered when evaluating the incidence of mesothelioma amongst American women in the current era. Without sufficient consideration of these factors, improper conclusions have been drawn over the past several years.
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.