Use of meta-analyses by IARC Working Groups

Our plain-English summary of Use of meta-analyses by IARC Working Groups, by K. Straif, L. Stayner, P.A. Demers, et al (Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012).

The study

• Authors: K. Straif, L. Stayner, P.A. Demers, P.J. Landrigan
• Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives
• Published: 2012;120(9):A342-3
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 3 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

In plain English

This was a letter to the editor, not a research study, and it reported no new data. The authors replied to an earlier letter by Kogevinas and Pearce (2012). That letter had suggested that meta-analyses, which pool results from several studies, should be prepared more routinely for cancer evaluations by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The authors agreed that meta-analyses are useful in many cases. They also gave examples from rubber manufacturing, night shift work and work as a painter where, in their view, meta-analyses had or had not been helpful. On asbestos, they referred to their own earlier meta-analysis of occupational asbestos exposure and ovarian cancer (Camargo et al. 2011) and to another by Reid et al. (2011). They wrote that both reported increased risks overall and in most stratified (subgroup) analyses. Reid et al. thought the increases might be due to disease misclassification, while Camargo et al. concluded that their analysis supported the IARC classification. The authors concluded that meta-analyses never remove the need for critical review of all available data, and that the need for them is likely to increase.

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 the use of meta-analyses by IARC Working Groups; no original data
• Who was studied: No study population; the letter discusses published meta-analyses and IARC evaluations
• Exposure: Discussed as examples: work in rubber manufacturing, night shift work, work as a painter, and asbestos exposure in relation to ovarian cancer. The authors' own asbestos meta-analysis focused on occupational cohorts. No fiber types are named.
• Main results:
  • The authors stated that meta-analyses are useful in many cases, but that there are counter-examples where they have not been useful.
  • The authors wrote that their asbestos and ovarian cancer meta-analysis (Camargo et al. 2011) and the one by Reid et al. (2011) both reported increased risks overall and in most stratified analyses. These are results of those earlier studies, not of this letter.
  • According to the letter, Reid et al. thought the increased risks might be due to disease misclassification. Camargo et al. concluded that their meta-analysis supports the IARC classification. The authors said this shows meta-analyses involve subjective decisions and interpretations.
  • The authors noted that the 2006 IARC Preamble specifically mentions the possibility of meta-analyses before and during Monograph meetings.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that meta-analyses may sometimes inform causal inference but never remove the need for critical review of all available data, and that the need for meta-analyses is likely to increase.

Topics

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

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: IARC.

Related studies

• Carcinogenic hazards from inhaled carbon black, titanium dioxide, and talc not containing asbestos or asbestiform fibers: recent evaluations by an IARC Monographs Working Group — R.A. Baan (2007)
• Assessing Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Solid Tumors: A Practical Review for Pathologists and Proposal for a Standardized Method from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers Working Group: Part 2: TILs in Melanoma, Gastrointestinal Tract Carcinomas, Non-Small Cell Lung Carcinoma and Mesothelioma, Endometrial and Ovarian Carcinomas, Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck, Genitourinary Carcinomas, and Primary Brain Tumors — S. Hendry, R. Salgado, et al. (2017)
• Importance of meta-analyses for evaluating carcinogens — M. Kogevinas, N. Pearce (2012)
• Guidelines for mineral fibre analyses in biological samples: report of the ERS Working Group. European Respiratory Society — P. De Vuyst, A. Karjalainen, et al. (1998)
• Occupational exposure to asbestos and ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis — M.C. Camargo, L.T. Stayner, et al. (2011)
• Analyses of merlin/NF2 connection to FAK inhibitor responsiveness in serous ovarian cancer — N.R. Shah, I. Tancioni, et al. (2014)

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