Indoor and Built Environment

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register today!

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fry, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, P. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Indoor and Built Environment, Vol. 9, No. 6, 303-316 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X0000900602
© 2000 International Society of the Built Environment

Revisiting the Association between Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk

I. The Dose-Response Relationship with Amount and Duration of Smoking by the Husband

John S. Fry

P.N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., Sutton, Surrey, UK

Peter N. Lee

P.N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd., Sutton, Surrey, UK

Hackshaw et al. [BMJ 1997;315:980-988] estimated that, in non-smoking women, lung cancer risk rises 23% (95% Cl 14-32%) per 10 cigarettes per day smoked by the hus band and 11% (95% Cl 4-17%) per 10 years exposure. Although we reproduced these estimates approximately, use of later and more appropriate data gave lower val ues : 10% (95% Cl 5-15%) per 10 cigarettes per day and 7% (95% Cl 4-11%) per 10 years. Among the reasons Hackshaw et al. [1997] reported higher risks are failure to consider studies reporting results only as exposed/unex posed and substantial overweighting of results from one study. Extended analysis revealed that a linear model fits the data as well as the exponential model of Hackshaw et al. [1997] in the observed range, but yields more plausi ble risk estimates at higher doses. In this paper, we also This work was supported by the Tobacco Manufacturers Associa tion, however, the views expressed are those of the authors. introduce a method to convert dose-response data, re ported only as a set of correlated risk estimates and con fidence intervals, into a form amenable to dose-response summary analyses.

Key Words: Environmental tobacco smoke • Lung cancer • Dose response • Meta-analysis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?