↓ Skip to main content

Occupational exposure to silica dust and risk of lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Occupational exposure to silica dust and risk of lung cancer: an updated meta-analysis of epidemiological studies
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3791-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satiavani Poinen-Rughooputh, Mahesh Shumsher Rughooputh, Yanjun Guo, Yi Rong, Weihong Chen

Abstract

Crystalline silica is considered as one of the most common and serious occupational hazards to workers' health. Although its association with lung cancer has been studied for many decades, the conclusion remains somewhat controversial. Our objectives are to review and summarize the epidemiological evidence on the relationship between occupational silica exposure and risk of lung cancer and to provide an update on this major occupational health concern. Eligible studies up to 29 April 2016 were identified. Pooled effect estimates were calculated according to the reported outcome and the study design. Cohort, case control and proportional mortality studies were examined separately. Studies reporting results according to silicotic status were grouped together and analyzed. Due to the significant amount of heterogeneity expected, random effects models were implemented. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses (both univariate and multivariate) were performed in an attempt to explain heterogeneity. Studies which had adequate exposure characterization were selected to find out whether there was an exposure-response relationship between silica and lung cancer. The risk of lung cancer was found to be elevated in both silicotics and non-silicotics. The pooled standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was 2.32 with a 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) of 1.91-2.81 and 1.78 (95 % CI 1.07-2.96) respectively. The pooled standardized incidence ratio (SIR) was 2.49 (95 % CI 1.87-3.33) and 1.18 (95 % CI 0.86-1.62) respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that workers in the mining industry had the highest risk of lung cancer with a pooled SMR of 1.48 (95 % CI 1.18-1.86) and the weakest association was seen in potteries with a pooled SMR of 1.14 (95 % CI 1.05-1.23). A positive exposure-response relation was found between cumulative silica exposure and risk of lung cancer. The results of our meta-analysis supported the carcinogenic role of silica on the lungs, which was more pronounced at higher levels of exposure, in the presence of silicosis and in the mining industry. Further research is needed to evaluate whether non-silicotics are truly at risk, whether a predisposing factor would explain this potential risk, and to determine the mechanism of carcinogenicity of silica in humans.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 200 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 63 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Environmental Science 12 6%
Engineering 11 6%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 41 21%
Unknown 68 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,964,686
of 24,219,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,387
of 15,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,105
of 315,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#54
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,219,576 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.