ReviewEuropean journal of epidemiology2026
Occupational benzene exposure and risk of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in European journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung cancer is a major global health issue, especially among men. While smoking and occupational or environmental exposures are known risks, the role of benzene remains under investigation. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between occupational benzene exposure and lung cancer incidence and mortality. We included cohort and case-control studies mentioned in the 2018 IARC Monograph on benzene and performed a systematic literature review to identify studies published up to 2024 by using PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases. We constructed forest plots of relative risk (RR) to visualize and analyze the data. A random-effects model was used to address heterogeneity between studies. Stratified analyses were conducted to explore effect modification. We included 44 independent studies in our meta-analysis. The findings didn't reveal an association between total occupational benzene exposure and lung cancer overall (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.93-1.07, p-het ≤ 0.001, 45 risk estimates) or in major industries. Stratified analyses suggested an association in case controls studies (RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.10-1.22: 7 risk estimates, p-het = 0.001), and in studies with results adjusted for smoking (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.11-1.24: 6 risk estimates, p-het = 0.001). There was also an association between high-level benzene exposure and lung cancer (p-trend = 0.03). Publication bias was excluded (p = 0.16). The increased risk after adjustment for smoking and the suggestion of a dose-response, are consistent with the hypothesis of an association between benzene exposure and lung cancer risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479407What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.