scholarly journals O2E.4 Evaluation of exposure assessment methods in epidemiological studies: the welding example

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A21.1-A21
Author(s):  
Susan Peters ◽  
Jerome Lavoue ◽  
Marissa Baker ◽  
Hans Kromhout

Exposure assessment quality is a fundamental consideration in the design and evaluation of observational studies. High quality exposure assessment is particularly relevant for outcomes with long latency, such as cancer, where detailed information on past exposures are often missing and must therefore be estimated.For the IARC Monograph on welding, the exposure group provided an overview of assessment methods used in the key epidemiological studies. Strengths and weaknesses of each study were assessed, along with their potential effects on interpretation of risk estimates.For the association between lung cancer and welding fume exposure, 9 cohort and 10 case-control studies were reviewed. For ocular melanoma and ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from welding, 7 case-control studies were reviewed. Quality criteria were: full occupational histories, and standardized, blinded and quantitative exposure assessment. Additional criteria for lung cancer: specifically assessing welding fumes and using information on welding tasks. For ocular melanoma: assessing artificial and solar radiation separately, taking into account eye burns, eye protection and welding type.Exposure assessment of welding fumes by applying a ‘welding-exposure matrix’ (n=2) or welding-specific questionnaires (n=3) were considered highest quality, followed by case-by-case expert assessment (n=5) or general job-exposure matrices (JEMs, n=4). Job title alone was considered less informative (n=5). For exposure to UVR, JEMs were most informative (n=2), followed by self-reported eye burns and self-reported exposure from specific welding types (n=2), although caution is advised regarding recall bias. Assessing welding fume exposure or ever exposure to welding arcs as proxy for UVR was considered less informative. For both exposures, ever versus never welder, or assessments based on data collected from proxies, were considered least informative.The overall evaluation was that there is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of welding fumes and ultraviolet radiation from welding.

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (9) ◽  
pp. 1047-1063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calvin B Ge ◽  
Melissa C Friesen ◽  
Hans Kromhout ◽  
Susan Peters ◽  
Nathaniel Rothman ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 422-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoj Kumar Honaryar ◽  
Ruth M Lunn ◽  
Danièle Luce ◽  
Wolfgang Ahrens ◽  
Andrea ’t Mannetje ◽  
...  

BackgroundAn estimated 110 million workers are exposed to welding fumes worldwide. Welding fumes are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic to humans (group 1), based on sufficient evidence of lung cancer from epidemiological studies.ObjectiveTo conduct a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies on welding or exposure to welding fumes and risk of lung cancer, accounting for confounding by exposure to asbestos and tobacco smoking.MethodsThe literature was searched comprehensively in PubMed, reference lists of relevant publications and additional databases. Overlapping populations were removed. Meta-relative risks (mRRs) were calculated using random effects models. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot, Eggers’s test and Begg’s test.ResultsForty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (20 case-control, 25 cohort/nested case-control), which reduced to 37 when overlapping study populations were removed. For ‘ever’ compared with ‘never’ being a welder or exposed to welding fumes, mRRs and 95% CIs were 1.29 (1.20 to 1.39; I2=26.4%; 22 studies) for cohort studies, 1.87 (1.53 to 2.29; I2=44.1%; 15 studies) for case-control studies and 1.17 (1.04 to 1.38; I2=41.2%) for 8 case-control studies that adjusted for smoking and asbestos exposure. The mRRs were 1.32 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; I2=6.3%; 15 studies) among ‘shipyard welders’, 1.44 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.95; I2=35.8%; 3 studies) for ‘mild steel welders’ and 1.38 (95% CI 0.89 to 2.13; I2=68.1%; 5 studies) among ‘stainless steel welders’. Increased risks persisted regardless of time period, geographic location, study design, occupational setting, exposure assessment method and histological subtype.ConclusionsThese results support the conclusion that exposure to welding fumes increases the risk of lung cancer, regardless of the type of steel welded, the welding method (arc vs gas welding) and independent of exposure to asbestos or tobacco smoking.


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Vallières ◽  
Javier Pintos ◽  
Jérôme Lavoué ◽  
Marie‐Élise Parent ◽  
Bernard Rachet ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Peters ◽  
R. Vermeulen ◽  
A. Cassidy ◽  
A. t. Mannetje ◽  
M. van Tongeren ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 136 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Consonni ◽  
Sara De Matteis ◽  
Angela C. Pesatori ◽  
Pier Alberto Bertazzi ◽  
Ann C. Olsson ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 114 (9) ◽  
pp. 1341-1359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Míriam Rodríguez-Monforte ◽  
Gemma Flores-Mateo ◽  
Emília Sánchez

AbstractEpidemiological studies show that diet is linked to the risk of developing CVD. The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the association between empirically derived dietary patterns and CVD. PubMed was searched for observational studies of data-driven dietary patterns that reported outcomes of cardiovascular events. The association between dietary patterns and CVD was estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis with 95 % CI. Totally, twenty-two observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled relative risk (RR) for CVD, CHD and stroke in a comparison of the highest to the lowest category of prudent/healthy dietary patterns in cohort studies was 0·69 (95 % CI 0·60, 0·78; I2=0 %), 0·83 (95 % CI 0·75, 0·92; I2=44·6 %) and 0·86 (95 % CI 0·74, 1·01; I2=59·5 %), respectively. The pooled RR of CHD in a case–control comparison of the highest to the lowest category of prudent/healthy dietary patterns was 0·71 (95 % CI 0·63, 0·80; I2=0 %). The pooled RR for CVD, CHD and stroke in a comparison of the highest to the lowest category of western dietary patterns in cohort studies was 1·14 (95 % CI 0·92, 1·42; I2=56·9 %), 1·03 (95 % CI 0·90, 1·17; I2=59·4 %) and 1·05 (95 % CI 0·91, 1·22; I2=27·6 %), respectively; in case–control studies, there was evidence of increased CHD risk. Our results support the evidence of the prudent/healthy pattern as a protective factor for CVD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document