1996
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.161
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantification of historical exposures in occupational cohort studies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Quantitative exposure estimation was therefore not performed and should probably not be attempted without measurement data. 12 We have previously presented a semiquantitative job exposure matrix for exposure to amorphous silica fume in these plants. 8 This matrix was not applied in this study as adjustments for other relevant exposures-for example, asbestos-could not be performed.…”
Section: Study Populationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Quantitative exposure estimation was therefore not performed and should probably not be attempted without measurement data. 12 We have previously presented a semiquantitative job exposure matrix for exposure to amorphous silica fume in these plants. 8 This matrix was not applied in this study as adjustments for other relevant exposures-for example, asbestos-could not be performed.…”
Section: Study Populationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some researchers have developed approaches that combine some of these methods (Stewart et al, 1996), allowing for more specific questions to be targeted at subjects likely to have been exposed to the exposures of interest. A more recent approach uses expert systems, jobspecific modules, and computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) called OccIDEAS (Fritschi et al, 2012).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors have shown that an assessment performed by experienced hygienists helped by local specialists is reliable, 24 25 albeit not very sensitive. 26 Some misclassification of exposure may occur due to the lack of detail in some work histories. This will tend to bias any true associations between exposure and disease risk towards the null value.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%