SynthesisOccupational and environmental medicine2026
Occupational and environmental risk factors for salivary gland cancer: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational and environmental risk factors for salivary gland cancer (SGC) are largely unrecognised. This systematic review is the first to characterise the relationship between employment in specific industries or occupations and risk of SGC, as well as exposure to key occupational and environmental hazards.Studies published up to September 2023 were collected from three electronic databases and systematically screened. The Health Assessment Workplace Collaborative programme was used to tag studies based on pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies eligible for inclusion (n=24) underwent an in-depth review to extract key study characteristics and findings, including effect estimates and 95% CIs. Studies were evaluated for influence of key biases. To identify priority sectors and hazards for intervention, effect direction plots were created to analyse the number and quality of studies reporting elevated rates of SGC across industry, occupation and exposure groups.24 articles were included for analysis. Exposure misclassification and confounding bias were a common concern across studies. Industry and occupation groups with the strongest relationship to SGC included cleaning services, material handling, food services, rubber/plastics production, engineering and construction/painting. Exposures with the strongest relationship to SGC included silica dust, cement dust, chlorinated solvents, formaldehyde and white spirits.Several occupational exposures were associated with an elevated risk of SGC, whereas environmental evidence was more limited. Additional research involving larger cohorts with quantitative exposure data is needed to further establish relationships between occupational and environmental exposures and often-overlooked rare cancers like SGC.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023468037.
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.