Evidence Hub

Comparison of the Total Mortality Risk for Nuclear Workers, Uranium Miners and other Occupations with the Risk of Passive Smoking (Meta-Analysis)

A. N. Koterov, L. Ushenkova, I. G. Dibirgadzhiev, T. M. Bulanova

Medical Radiology and radiation safety, 2024

1 citation

Abstract

Despite thousands of studies and about 150 meta-analyses for the effects of second hand smoking (SHS) on the mortality risks from individual diseases for mortality from all causes there are two orders of magnitude less work and only one meta-analysis Lv X. et al, 2015. Based on a selected sample of works (search in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Elibrary, Google and reference lists of sources) on all cause mortality due to SHS for exposure to adults (18 publications; 1984–2014), a systematic review, combined analysis and meta-analysis of the appropriate risk (Relative Risk, RR; odds ratio, OR and Hazard Ratio, HR), the value of which was 1.14 (95 % confidence intervals: 1.10, 1.19). This value according to the gradation of risks (R. Monson, 1980, 1990) is ‘indeterminable’, but when compared with the risks of mortality from occupational factors, it is very significant. By searching through these systems, as well as in the supported database, a selection of meta- and pooled analyzes on the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) for all causes with reference to various kinds of activity, including harmful/dangerous trades was collected. For a number of professions, their own meta-analyses have previously been performed. Of the 20 employment types considered, only five (25 %) were comparable in risk to or slightly higher than the SHS total mortality index (in increasing magnitude of risk: coal miners, dust exposure, asbestos exposure, beta-naphthylamine, and asbestos cement…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free