Skip to main content

Table 2 Prevalence odds ratio and age-standardized incidence rate ratio in the first and second screening, Fukushima

From: Demonstrating the undermining of science and health policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident by applying the Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods

Area and district

 

1st-round screening a

 

2nd-round screening

 

Internal comparison

External comparison

 

Internal comparison

External comparison

Casesd/

POR b

(95% CI)

SIR c

(95% CI)

Casesd/

POR b

(95% CI)

SIR c

(95% CI)

Examinees

Examinees

(1) Nearest area

14/41,810

1.1

(0.5, 2.7)

37.1

(20.3, 62.3)

17/34,558

3.5

(1.2, 12.0)

60.5

(35.2, 96.8)

(2) North middle district

12/50,617

0.8

(0.3, 1.9)

28.1

(14.5, 49.0)

11/45,580

1.7

(0.6, 6.2)

35.7

(17.8, 63.9)

(3) Central middle district

11/18,193

2

(0.8, 5.0)

75.8

(37.9, 135.7)

4/16,346

1.7

(0.4, 7.6)

38.3

(10.4, 98.0)

(4) Koriyama City district

25/54,062

1.5

(0.7, 3.5)

62.2

(40.2, 91.8)

18/48,046

2.6

(0.9, 9.1)

57.3

(34.0, 90.6)

(5) South Middle district

8/16,465

1.6

(0.6, 4.3)

62.6

(27, 123.3)

2/14,637

1

(0.1, 5.4)

22.1

(2.7, 79.8)

(6) Iwaki City district

24/49,430

1.6

(0.8, 3.6)

67.2

(43.0, 99.9)

9/45,265

1.4

(0.4, 5.2)

25.7

(8.0, 41.2)

(7) Southeastern least- contaminated district

9/29,816

1

Reference

48.3

(22.1, 91.7)

4/28,088

1

Reference

21.7

(5.9, 55.5)

(8) Western least-contaminated district

12/33,720

1.2

(0.5, 2.9)

62.9

(32.5, 109.9)

5/32,208

1.1

(0.3, 4.6)

22.9

(7.4, 53.4)

(9) Northeastern least-contaminated district

0/6360

0

(0, 1.9)

0

(0, 123.0)

1/5788

1.2

(0.05, 9.7)

27.3

(0.69, 152.1)

Total

115/300,473

1.3

(0.7, 2.7)

–

–

71e/270,516

1.8

(0.7, 5.9)

–

–

  1. Abbreviations: POR Prevalence odds ratio, SIR Standardized incidence rate, CI Confidence interval, FNAC Fine needle aspiration cytology
  2. a Data of first-round screening were included in our paper (Tsuda et al., 2016 [63]) up to December 31, 2014. However, in the analysis, the data were up to March 31, 2017 [20, 63]
  3. b Prevalence odds ratio (internal comparison)
  4. c Age-standardized incidence ratio compared with the Japanese national cancer registry from 2001 to 2008 (external comparison)
  5. d FNAC-positive patients (i.e., those in whom cancer cells were detected via cytology) nearly always had histologically confirmed cancer; therefore, we counted FNAC-positive patients as cancer cases in Table 2
  6. e Of the 71 thyroid cancer cases in the second round, 33 had no nodes or cysts on images in the first round of examination; 25 had cysts less than 20.1 mm in the first round; 7 had with nodes less than 5.1 mm in the first round; 5 had node(s) larger than 5 mm and/or cyst(s) larger than 20 mm in the first round; and 1 case did not undergo first-round examination [44]
  7. # All the data necessary to reproduce the results reported in Table 2 are available from the Fukushima Prefecture website. The reference number in the text is 20 for first-round screening as of March 31, 2017 and 44 for second-round screening as of June 30, 2017.
  8. [20] Fukushima Prefecture. Thyroid ultrasound examination (Preliminary baseline screening): Supplemental Report of the FY Survey. Materials and Minutes of Prefectural Oversight Committee Meetings. Reported on 5 June, 2017. http://kenko-kanri.jp/en/health-survey/document/pdf/27_5Jun2017.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2020
  9. [44] Fukushima Prefecture. Thyroid ultrasound examinations (First full-scale Thyroid Screening Program). Materials and Minutes of Prefectural Oversight Committee Meetings. Report of Second-Round Reported on 23 October 2017. http://kenko-kanri.jp/en/health-survey/document/pdf/28_23Oct2017.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2020
Back to article page

Environmental Health

ISSN: 1476-069X