Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24487207›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2014

Estimating the effect of cumulative occupational asbestos exposure on time to lung cancer mortality: using structural nested failure-time models to account for healthy-worker survivor bias.

Ashley I Naimi, Stephen R Cole, Michael G Hudgens, David B Richardson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Induction of GOncology letters · 2016
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Are all biases missing data problems?Current epidemiology reports · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ashley I NaimiFrom the aDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and bDepartment of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Stephen R Cole
Michael G Hudgens
David B Richardson
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Cohort analysis methods for occupational cancer studiesR01CA117841 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID B · 2007 to 2012
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA117841NCI NIH HHS R01CA117841
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious estimates of the effect of occupational asbestos on lung cancer mortality have been obtained by using methods that are subject to the healthy-worker survivor bias. G-estimation of a structural nested model provides consistent exposure effect estimates under this bias.

methodsWe estimated the effect of cumulative asbestos exposure on lung cancer mortality in a cohort comprising 2564 textile factory workers who were followed from January 1940 to December 2001.

resultsAt entry, median age was 23 years, with 42% of the cohort being women and 20% nonwhite. During the follow-up period, 15% of person-years were classified as occurring while employed and 13% as occupationally exposed to asbestos. For a 100 fiber-year/ml increase in cumulative asbestos, a Weibull model adjusting for sex, race, birth year, baseline exposure, and age at study entry yielded a survival time ratio of 0.88 (95% confidence interval = 0.83 to 0.93). Further adjustment for work status yielded no practical change. The corresponding survival time ratio obtained using g-estimation of a structural nested model was 0.57 (0.33 to 0.96).

conclusionsAccounting for the healthy-worker survivor bias resulted in a 35% stronger effect estimate. However, this estimate was considerably less precise. When healthy-worker survivor bias is suspected, methods that account for it should be used.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAdultAir Pollutants, OccupationalAsbestosBiasFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealthy Worker EffectHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureSouth CarolinaTextile IndustryTime FactorsAir Pollutants, OccupationalAsbestos

Identifiers

PMID24487207
PMCPMC4457343
OpenAlexW1975399039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.