ReviewOccupational and environmental medicine1995
Does occupational exposure to dust prevent colorectal cancer?
Review in Occupational and environmental medicine, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Occupational exposures and colorectal cancers: a quantitative overview of epidemiological evidence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Pooled it
- Wilms tumour.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2021Review
- Does occupational exposure to dust prevent colorectal cancer?Occupational and environmental medicine · 1995Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the impression that occupational epidemiologists tend to focus on associations suggestive of increased risk and tend to ignore those associations in which risk is not increased. To examine the risk of colorectal cancer in cohorts exposed to dust, cohorts in which it has been suggested that occupational exposure is a cause of increased risk of stomach cancer.
methodsA review of the publications in the English language on mortality among hard rock miners, granite, and quarry workers identified from a MEDLINE search and the index of the library of the Ontario Ministry of Labour.
resultsWhen all of the studies were combined, there were significant excesses of lung and stomach cancers, but a significant deficit of colorectal cancer (standardised mortality ratio (SMR) = 83.9; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 76-91). Overall mortality from gastrointestinal cancer was close to expectation (SMR = 105; 95% CI 99-111). Among those cohorts with increased risk of stomach cancer, rates of colorectal cancer were significantly decreased (SMR = 80; 95% CI 72-88). Among cohorts without increased risk of stomach cancer, the SMR for colorectal cancer was not significantly different from 100 (SMR = 98; 95% CI 81-115).
conclusionsThis review supports the impression that occupational epidemiologists tend to focus on associations suggestive of increased risk and tend to ignore those associations in which risk is not increased. The explanation for the inverse association between risk of stomach and colorectal cancer is uncertain and deserves further study.
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.