The analysis doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
> We interpret the P value as a continuous measure rather than limiting interpretation to dichotomisation of the P value at a threshold for declaring significance (such as 0.05)
That seems weird to me.
The figure https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/382/bmj-2022-074520/F1.large... shows a lot of their datapoints confidence intervals crossing 1.0
In addition, they are using 90% confidence intervals instead of 95% saying that this is what is often used in these types of studies. Interestingly, in their discussion, the other studies that have 95% confidence intervals seem to cross 0, quite a lot.
In addition, in their discussion, they characterize other studies as showing difference when the confidence interval includes 0:
>Analyses of mortality among French nuclear workers showed a positive association between estimated colon dose and solid cancer mortality (excess relative rate 0.69 (95% confidence interval −0.28 to 1.77) per Gy)58; we note that INWORKS includes a sizable fraction of this cohort. Analyses of mortality among US nuclear workers showed a positive association between cumulative dose and solid cancer mortality (excess relative rate 0.19 (95% confidence interval −0.10 to 0.52) per Gy), which was of larger magnitude among workers first hired after 1960
All this together makes me suspicious