2006
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20281
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Methodological issues regarding confounding and exposure misclassification in epidemiological studies of occupational exposures

Abstract: These comments are not to suggest that all potential limitations for epidemiologic studies should not be considered and evaluated. We do believe, however, that the likelihood of occurrence and the direction and magnitude of the effect should be more carefully and realistically considered when making judgments about study design or data interpretation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
157
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 211 publications
(160 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
3
157
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Choosing a surrogate exposure metric (e.g., total dust) in place of a more proximal indicator (e.g., respirable-size cobalt and tungsten particles) may lead to the attenuation of observed exposure-response relationships, even in the presence of moderately high correlation (r ¼ 0.68 to 0.88) between the exposure metrics (Friesen et al, 2007). If the biologically relevant exposure is a mixture whose composition varies between work areas, as is observed for CTC dusts (Stefaniak et al, 2007), then selection of a less-specific surrogate exposure metric (e.g., cobalt alone) may bias exposure-response relationships for HMD due to exposure misclassification, despite moderately high correlation between the respirable-size cobalt and tungsten exposure constituents (Blair et al, 2007;Friesen et al, 2007). For example, Blair et al (2007) demonstrated that even moderately high correlation (rE0.7) between a surrogate and proximal exposure index may cause misclassification of up to 60% of subjects into exposure quintiles, which in turn may cause an appreciable bias in estimates of relative risk.…”
Section: Considerations For Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Choosing a surrogate exposure metric (e.g., total dust) in place of a more proximal indicator (e.g., respirable-size cobalt and tungsten particles) may lead to the attenuation of observed exposure-response relationships, even in the presence of moderately high correlation (r ¼ 0.68 to 0.88) between the exposure metrics (Friesen et al, 2007). If the biologically relevant exposure is a mixture whose composition varies between work areas, as is observed for CTC dusts (Stefaniak et al, 2007), then selection of a less-specific surrogate exposure metric (e.g., cobalt alone) may bias exposure-response relationships for HMD due to exposure misclassification, despite moderately high correlation between the respirable-size cobalt and tungsten exposure constituents (Blair et al, 2007;Friesen et al, 2007). For example, Blair et al (2007) demonstrated that even moderately high correlation (rE0.7) between a surrogate and proximal exposure index may cause misclassification of up to 60% of subjects into exposure quintiles, which in turn may cause an appreciable bias in estimates of relative risk.…”
Section: Considerations For Epidemiologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, from a medical perspective, documenting exposure to multiple agents may be useful in diagnosing and managing adverse health effects. From an epidemiological perspective, even moderately high correlation (rB0.7) between surrogate and ''true'' indices of exposure may cause misclassification of up to 60% of subjects into exposure quintiles, which in turn may cause a significant bias in the relative risk estimate (Blair et al, 2007). Additionally, high correlation among the metals in terms of exposure may not necessarily correspond to high correlation with dose, as dose is very likely dependent upon the physicochemical properties and toxicokinetics of the individual metals.…”
Section: Health Implications Of Exposure Pathwaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nondifferential misclassification tends to disrupt exposure-response trends and diminish a confidence that a causal association exists (Blair et al 2007). We have chosen to scale the job exposure categories from baseline.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%