Importance of meta-analyses for evaluating carcinogens

Our plain-English summary of Importance of meta-analyses for evaluating carcinogens, by M. Kogevinas, N. Pearce (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012).

The study

• Authors: M. Kogevinas, N. Pearce
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2012;120(4):A145; author reply A146-7
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This is a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reported no new data. The authors commented on a 2011 meta-analysis by Camargo and colleagues of occupational asbestos exposure and ovarian cancer. They noted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group that met in 2009 apparently did not use a formal meta-analysis of all available studies, and that IARC does not routinely prepare formal meta-analyses for its evaluations. From their own service on IARC working groups, the authors wrote that members do perform informal meta-analyses. They cautioned that meta-analyses can be challenging and controversial depending on their assumptions, and that their results have to be critically interpreted. They described the Camargo meta-analysis as giving an overall estimate (a standardized mortality ratio) of around 1.8. The authors concluded that it seemed advisable for IARC to use all the tools available for summarizing evidence, including meta-analysis. They said they would have preferred to have the Camargo meta-analysis on hand before the evaluation.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Letter to the editor (correspondence) commenting on a published meta-analysis and on IARC procedures; no new data
• Who was studied: Not applicable: no participants were studied. The letter discusses IARC Monograph evaluations and the Camargo et al. (2011) meta-analysis.
• Exposure: Asbestos and ovarian cancer, as the subject of the Camargo et al. (2011) meta-analysis that the letter discusses
• Main results:
  • The authors stated that the 2009 IARC working group apparently did not use a formal meta-analysis of all available studies to evaluate the evidence
  • The authors stated that IARC does not routinely prepare formal meta-analyses for its evaluations
  • From their own experience on IARC working groups, the authors stated that members perform informal meta-analyses
  • Not a finding of this letter: the authors described the Camargo et al. (2011) meta-analysis as giving an overall meta-estimate (standardized mortality ratio) of around 1.8
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that, given the international importance of the IARC Monographs, it seemed advisable to use all available tools for summarizing scientific evidence, including meta-analysis. They added that they would have preferred to have the Camargo meta-analysis before the evaluation.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Caveat the authors state about meta-analyses in general: they can be challenging and controversial depending on assumptions
  • Caveat the authors state about meta-analyses in general: their results have to be critically interpreted

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Ovarian cancer.

Related studies

• Use of meta-analyses by IARC Working Groups — K. Straif, L. Stayner, et al. (2012)
• The relative importance of clinical, radiological and pulmonary function variables in evaluating asbestosis and chronic obstructive airway disease in asbestos workers — G.M. Regan, B. Tagg, et al. (1971)
• Analyses of merlin/NF2 connection to FAK inhibitor responsiveness in serous ovarian cancer — N.R. Shah, I. Tancioni, et al. (2014)
• Occupational exposure to asbestos and ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis — M.C. Camargo, L.T. Stayner, et al. (2011)
• Does exposure to asbestos cause ovarian cancer? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis — A. Reid, N. de Klerk, et al. (2011)
• Meta-Analysis of Different Procedures: The Importance of Recognizing the Spectrum of Pleurectomy/Decortication Techniques — C. Cao, D.H. Tian, et al. (2015)

Browse more research in Environmental Health Perspectives, or return to medical research.