Comparison of exposure assessment methods for occupational carcinogens in a multi-centre lung cancer case-control study

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00209805%3A_____%2F11%3A%230000189" target="_blank" >RIV/00209805:_____/11:#0000189 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://oem.bmj.com/content/68/2/148" target="_blank" >http://oem.bmj.com/content/68/2/148</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oem.2010.055608" target="_blank" >10.1136/oem.2010.055608</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of exposure assessment methods for occupational carcinogens in a multi-centre lung cancer case-control study

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Objectives: Retrospective exposure assessment remains a problematic aspect of population-based case-control studies. Different methods have been developed, including case-by-case expert assessment and job-exposure matrices (JEM). The present analyses compare exposure prevalence and risk estimates derived by different exposure assessment methods. Methods: In the context of a case-control study conducted in seven European countries, exposure was estimated for asbestos, diesel motor emissions (DME) and crystalline silica, using three different assessment methods. First, experts assigned exposures to all reported jobs on a case-by-case basis. Second, a population-specific JEM (PSJEM) was developed using the expert assessments of controls only, and re-applied to all study subjects. Third, an independent general population JEM (GPJEM) was created by occupational exposure experts not involved in the original study, and applied to study subjects. Results: from these methods were compared. Resu

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of exposure assessment methods for occupational carcinogens in a multi-centre lung cancer case-control study

Popis výsledku anglicky

Objectives: Retrospective exposure assessment remains a problematic aspect of population-based case-control studies. Different methods have been developed, including case-by-case expert assessment and job-exposure matrices (JEM). The present analyses compare exposure prevalence and risk estimates derived by different exposure assessment methods. Methods: In the context of a case-control study conducted in seven European countries, exposure was estimated for asbestos, diesel motor emissions (DME) and crystalline silica, using three different assessment methods. First, experts assigned exposures to all reported jobs on a case-by-case basis. Second, a population-specific JEM (PSJEM) was developed using the expert assessments of controls only, and re-applied to all study subjects. Third, an independent general population JEM (GPJEM) was created by occupational exposure experts not involved in the original study, and applied to study subjects. Results: from these methods were compared. Resu

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

FD - Onkologie a hematologie

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2011

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Occupational and environmental medicine

ISSN

1351-0711

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

68

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

148-153

Kód UT WoS článku

000286223300013

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—