Cited by 395Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningOccupational and environmental lung diseases

Mortality from cancer in relation to smoking: 50 years observations on British doctors

Open access
Doll, R, Peto, R, Boreham, J, Sutherland, I·2005·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

A total of 34,439 male British doctors, who reported their smoking habits in November 1951, were followed, with periodic up date of changes in their habits, until death, emigration, censoring. or November 2001. Information was obtained about their mortality from 28 of the 30 types of cancer in men reviewed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (no death was recorded from the other two). In all, 11 of the 13 types in men that the Agency classed as liable to be caused by smoking were significantly related to smoking and the findings for the other two, which caused only few deaths, suggested they might be. Of the 13 types in men for which the Agency found only sparse or inconsistent data and for which we had data, only two appeared to be possibly related (one positively, one negatively), and the 638 deaths for the summed group were clearly unrelated to smoking. Of the two types for which the Agency thought that the relationship with smoking might be due to bias or confounding, the findings for one (prostate cancer) tended to support the belief that smoking was unrelated, and those for the other (colorectal cancer) showed a weak relationship with smoking, which (in a small subset) could not be attributed to confounding with the consumption of alcohol.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602359

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doll, R., Peto, R., Boreham, J., & Sutherland, I.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Doll, R
ORCID
Peto, R
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2005-01-25
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
426-429
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W2053100259
Cited by
392
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 26
FWCI
14.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Occupational and environmental lung diseases
Keywords
smoking, cancer mortality, British doctors, lung cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, alcohol consumption, confounding, long-term follow-up
MeSH terms
Alcohol Drinking, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Neoplasms, Physicians, Prostatic Neoplasms, Risk Factors, Smoking, Colorectal Neoplasms, Cohort Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review