SynthesisBMC public health2025
Incidence of solid cancers among residents near nuclear facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConcerns about the potential health effects of radiation exposure in communities living near nuclear facilities persist, prompting ongoing studies across various countries. However, research on solid cancers in these communities remains limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively investigate the incidence of various solid cancers among residents near nuclear facilities, providing up-to-date scientific evidence on potential health effects in the context of energy security and net-zero emission targets.
methodsA comprehensive search of the databases PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, and Web of Science was conducted. Data were extracted from 13 studies on breast, bladder, thyroid, CNS, and respiratory cancers, with the meta-analysis focusing on cancer types supported by at least five quantitative estimates to account for study heterogeneity. Study quality was assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation tool. Pooled standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated using random-effects models, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test.
resultsThe meta-analyses included the following number of cases for each selected cancer type: breast, n = 20,701; bladder, n = 5,398; thyroid, n = 9,907; CNS, n = 3,634; and respiratory system, n = 18,033. Pooled SIRs for all cancer subtypes were statistically insignificant and ranged from 0.99 to 1.04, with substantial heterogeneity among studies (I
conclusionsCurrent scientific evidence regarding the incidence of solid cancers in populations living near nuclear facilities is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Nonetheless, the wide range of heterogeneity among studies highlights the need for further research with refined study designs, particularly with regard to radiation exposure and individual-level confounding factors, to provide more robust evidence on the public health implications for residents near nuclear facilities.
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.