You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 77, Issue 9
  • Author’s response to ‘Re: Exposure to asbestos and the risk of colorectal cancer mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Kwak et al’

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Author’s response to ‘Re: Exposure to asbestos and the risk of colorectal cancer mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis by Kwak et al’
  1. Kyeongmin Kwak1,2,
  2. Domyung Paek1,3,
  3. Kyung Ehi Zoh1
  1. 1 Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  2. 2 Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Ansan, Gyeonggi-do, Korea (the Republic of)
  3. 3 Institute of Health and Environment, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea (the Republic of)
  1. Correspondence to Kyung Ehi Zoh, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul 08826, Korea (the Republic of); kezoh{at}snu.ac.kr

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106737

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We would like to thank Dr Boffetta for his comment on potential overlaps in the selection of cohorts. As we tried to keep the principle of examining all the available publications in the systematic review and avoiding the double count in the meta-analysis, we have re-examined the materials of the study again. Even though different aspects in the follow-ups of five cohorts were noted in the original review of 12 studies, we agree with Dr Boffetta that, on re-examination, there …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors KK and KEZ reviewed the relevant articles. KK analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. DP interpreted the data and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles