The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relationship between exposure to PM2.5 and lung cancer incidence and mortality: A meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
// Feifei Huang 1 , Bing Pan 1 , Jun Wu 1 , Engeng Chen 2 and Liying Chen 1 1 Department of Family Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310016, P.R. China 2 Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310016, P.R. China Correspondence to: Liying Chen, email: cly0906@163.com Keywords: PM2.5, lung cancer, mortality, incidence, meta-analysis Received: February 10, 2017 Accepted: April 04, 2017 Published: April 21, 2017 ABSTRACT We conducted a meta-analysis to examinine the relationship between exposure to PM2.5 and lung cancer incidence and mortality. In total, 17 studies met our inclusion criteria and provided information necessary to estimate the change in lung cancer risk per 10 μg/m 3 increase in exposure to PM2.5. The random-effects model was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) for specific PM2.5 values. The meta-estimate for lung cancer risk associated with PM2.5 was 1.11 for mortality (95% CI: 1.05, 1.18) and 1.08 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.12) for incidence. Analyses by continent showed that the meta-estimate for lung cancer mortality associated with PM2.5 was greatest in North America [1.15 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.24)], followed by Asia [1.12 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.35)], and then Europe [1.05 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.10)]. Lung cancer incidence associated with PM2.5 was greatest in Asia [1.09 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.15)], followed by North America [1.06 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.11)], and then Europe [1.03 (95% CI: 0.61, 1.75)]. In subgroup analyses of country, the mortality meta-estimate for developed countries was 1.14 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.23), and for developing countries was 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.07). The incidence meta-estimate for developed countries was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.20), and was similar to that of developing countries, 1.07 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.09). In subgroup analyses of males and females, the meta-estimate for lung cancer mortality associated with PM2.5 was greater for males [1.26 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.40)] than for females [1.17 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.39)]. The meta-estimate for lung cancer incidence associated with PM2.5 was greater for males [1.23 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.81)] than for females [1.15 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.18)]. In subgroup analyses of smoking status, the meta-estimate for lung cancer mortality associated with PM2.5 for former smokers was 1.46 (95% CI: 0.84, 2.55), for current smokers was 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20, 1.49), and for never smokers was 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.33), respectively. The meta-estimate for lung cancer incidence associated with PM2.5 for former smokers was 1.19 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.50), for never smokers was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.59), and for current smokers was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.21). The relative risks of a relationship between PM2.5 and lung cancer incidence and mortality were 1.08 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.12) and 1.11 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.18), respectively. These findings will provide some evidence for policy makers and public health practitioners worldwide.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Stang, A. (2010) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z · Cited by 17,396
Cited by
Climate change and healthy ageing: An assessment of the impact of climate hazards on older people
Prina, M., Khan, N., Akhter Khan, S., Caicedo, J. C., Peycheva, A., Seo, V., Xue, S., & Sadana, R. (2024) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.14.04101 · Cited by 88
Yuan, H., Kehm, R. D., Daaboul, J. M., Lloyd, S. E., McDonald, J. A., Mu, L., Tehranifar, P., Zhang, K., Terry, M. B., & Yang, W. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-56634-w · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, F., Pan, B., Wu, J., Chen, E., & Chen, L.
- Venue
- Oncotarget
- Publisher
- Impact Journals, LLC
- Published
- 2017-04-21
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 43322-43331
- ISSN
- 1949-2553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2606702273
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.