Skip to main content
. 2016 Oct 11;46(10):942–951. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyw091

Table 2.

Characteristics of case-control studies included in the meta-analysis

References Study period Study subjects Exposure Odds ratio a (95% CI) Adjustment
Setting Definition Number of nonsmoking cases Number of nonsmoking controls Place/Source Category
Akiba (24) Hiroshima Nagasaki atomic bomb survivors cohort (nested case-control) Case: Newly diagnosed cases of primary lung cancer 94 women 270 women Spouse's smoking habit Husband smoked 1.50 (0.87–2.59) Year of birth, sex, city of residence, participation in biennial medical examination, vital statistics
Control: Cohort members without lung cancer 19 men 110 men Spouse's smoking habit Wife smoked 1.80 (0.43–7.59)
Inoue (26) 1980–83 Population-based, two cities in Kanagawa Prefecture Case: Women lung cancer deaths 83 women 166 women Husband ‘s smoking <20 cigarettes/day 1.39 (0.26–7.50) Age, year of deaths, district.
1973–81 Control: Women cerebrovascular deaths ≥20 cigarettes/day 3.09 (0.73–13.14)
Shimizu (34) 1982–85 Hospital-based, 4 hospitals in Nagoya City Case: Female in-patients with lung cancer 90 women 163 women The presence of a smoking family member Husband 1.08 (0.64–1.82) Age, hospital, date of admission.
Control: Female in-patients other than with lung cancer
Sobue (35) 1986–88 Hospital-based, 8 hospitals in Osaka Prefecture Case: Newly-admitted patients in wards for lung cancer 144 women 731 women Smoking status of household members Husband smoked 1.13 (0.78–1.63) Age, years of education
Control: Newly-admitted patients in one or two wards for other diseases.
Seki (33) 1997–2009 Hospital-based, a hospital in Miyagi City Case: Lung cancer patients 292 women 1810 women Spouse's smoking habit Husband smoked 1.31 (0.99–1.73) Age, year of recruitment, area of residence, referral status (screening or not), occupation, alcohol drinking, family history of lung cancer
Control: Non-cancer patients 70 men 600 men Spouse's smoking habit Wife smoked 1.29 (0.34–4.90)

aThe standard error and 95% CI were re-calculated from the reported odds ratios and CIs. Therefore, 95% CIs in this table do not always correspond to the CIs reported in each study.