SynthesisOccupational and environmental medicine2026
Adjusting for the diagnostic accuracy of CXR in the dose-response relationship between cumulative silica exposure and silicosis in miners.
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. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of chest X-ray screening for silicosis: a systematic review, meta-analysis and modelling study.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA recent meta-analysis confirmed that chest X-ray (CXR) has low sensitivity for diagnosing silicosis. We re-estimated previously published dose-response relationships between cumulative respirable crystalline silica (RCS) exposure and silicosis risk, under the assumptions that sensitivity was either fixed or relative to the population proportion of severe silicosis.
methodsWe combined unpublished logistic regression models from Scottish coal miners with meta-analysis results to model how CXR sensitivity changed according to cumulative RCS exposure. We assumed specificity was 0.95. Among mining cohorts, we calculated the difference in the cumulative risk of silicosis between the unadjusted and fixed and relative scenarios. Finally, we re-estimated a published dose-response meta-analysis and associated absolute risk reductions (ARR).
resultsThe cumulative risk of silicosis was substantially higher in both the fixed and relative sensitivity scenarios compared with the unadjusted estimate in all mining cohorts. This was most pronounced in the relative scenario and when cumulative RCS exposures were below approximately 6 mg/m³-years. A reduction in cumulative RCS exposure from 4 to 2mg/m³-years corresponded to larger ARRs in the fixed and relative scenarios than the unadjusted scenario; 382 (95% CI 361 to 399) and 529 (95% CI 353 to 592) cases per 1000 miners compared with 313 (95% CI 288 to 333) cases per 1000 miners, respectively. DISCUSSION: We relied on a single estimate of the proportion of severe disease to link sensitivity and cumulative RCS exposure. Nevertheless, adjusting for the reduced diagnostic accuracy of CXR for silicosis suggests the burden of silicosis is underestimated in published mining cohorts.
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.