Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25193938›Full record

SynthesisThe Annals of occupational hygiene2014

Evaluating temporal trends from occupational lead exposure data reported in the published literature using meta-regression.

Dong-Hee Koh, Jun-Mo Nam, Barry I Graubard, Yu-Cheng Chen, Sarah J Locke, Melissa C Friesen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Dust and Cobalt Levels in the Austrian Tungsten Industry: Workplace and Human Biomonitoring Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2016
    Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Dong-Hee Koh1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA 3.National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang 410-769, Korea.
Jun-Mo Nam1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Barry I Graubard1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Yu-Cheng Chen2.National Environmental Health Research Center, National Health Research Institutes, Taipei 11503, Taiwan.
Sarah J Locke1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Melissa C Friesen1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA friesenmc@mail.nih.gov.

Funding

STUDIES OF OCCUPATIONAL CANCER--OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTZ01CP010122 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI DOSEMECI, MUSTAFA · 1996 to 2008
$83k
Intramural NIH HHSNCI NIH HHS Z01CP10122-19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe published literature provides useful exposure measurements that can aid retrospective exposure assessment efforts, but the analysis of this data is challenging as it is usually reported as means, ranges, and measures of variability. We used mixed-effects meta-analysis regression models, which are commonly used to summarize health risks from multiple studies, to predict temporal trends of blood and air lead concentrations in multiple US industries from the published data while accounting for within- and between-study variability in exposure.

methodsWe extracted the geometric mean (GM), geometric standard deviation (GSD), and number of measurements from journal articles reporting blood and personal air measurements from US worksites. When not reported, we derived the GM and GSD from other summary measures. Only industries with measurements in ≥2 time points and spanning ≥10 years were included in our analyses. Meta-regression models were developed separately for each industry and sample type. Each model used the log-transformed GM as the dependent variable and calendar year as the independent variable. It also incorporated a random intercept that weighted each study by a combination of the between- and within-study variances. The within-study variances were calculated as the squared log-transformed GSD divided by the number of measurements. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to obtain the regression parameters and between-study variances.

resultsThe blood measurement models predicted statistically significant declining trends of 2-11% per year in 8 of the 13 industries. The air measurement models predicted a statistically significant declining trend (3% per year) in only one of the seven industries; an increasing trend (7% per year) was also observed for one industry. Of the five industries that met our inclusion criteria for both air and blood, the exposure declines per year tended to be slightly greater based on blood measurements than on air measurements.

conclusionsMeta-analysis provides a useful tool for synthesizing occupational exposure data to examine exposure trends that can aid future retrospective exposure assessment. Data remained too sparse to account for other exposure predictors, such as job category or sampling strategy, but this limitation may be overcome by using additional data sources.

Indexed as

Air Pollutants, OccupationalEnvironmental MonitoringHumansIndustryLeadLikelihood FunctionsModels, TheoreticalOccupational ExposurePredictive Value of TestsRegression AnalysisAir Pollutants, OccupationalLeadexposureleadmeta-analysismeta-regressiontemporal trend

Identifiers

PMID25193938
PMCPMC4227532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.