Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35836544›Full record

ArticleTranslational cancer research2022

Benzene exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Yang Liu, Jingxin Wang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yang LiuDepartment of Hematology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Jingxin WangDepartment of Otolaryngology, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
First Hospital of China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Although there is sufficient evidence that benzene exposure increases the risk of leukemia, whether benzene exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) remains controversial. The method of meta-analysis can reduce the uncertainty in evidence-based medicine (EBM) evidence decision-making caused by the bias between studies by systematically searching, evaluating, and combining all relevant literatures. Methods: PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect and other databases were searched according to the population exposure comparison outcome principles: whether the general population exposed to benzene has a higher risk of developing NHL than the population without benzene exposure. Two independent researchers extracted the main endpoint indicators from the included literature, including the odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) of benzene exposure to the risk of NHL. Risk of bias was assessed for each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Q test and I Results: A total of 14 articles were included in this study for meta-analysis, including 9 cohort studies and 5 case-control studies with NOS scores between 5 and 9. Four of the articles were at low risk of bias, and 10 were at moderate risk of bias. Of 492,719 people with benzene exposure, there were 1,994 cases of NHL. The OR of NHL in the benzene-exposed population compared with nonexposed population was 1.23 (P=0.03), with moderate heterogeneity (I Conclusions: Benzene exposure was positively correlated with the incidence of NHL.

Indexed as

Benzenecausalitymeta-analysisnon-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL)

Identifiers

PMID35836544
PMCPMC9273682
OpenAlexW4285524785

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.