ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2015
Validity of expert assigned retrospective estimates of occupational polychlorinated biphenyl exposure.
Article in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the validity of a perfluorooctane sulfonic acid exposure reconstruction using a measured serum concentration among workers with a wide range of exposure.Annals of work exposures and health · 2025Article
- Using Decision Rules to Assess Occupational Exposure in Population-Based Studies.Current environmental health reports · 2019Review
- Validity of retrospective occupational exposure estimates of lead and manganese in a case-control study.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2019Article
- Use and Reliability of Exposure Assessment Methods in Occupational Case-Control Studies in the General Population: Past, Present, and Future.Annals of work exposures and health · 2018Review
- A nested case-control study of polychlorinated biphenyls, organochlorine pesticides, and thyroid cancer in the Janus Serum Bank cohort.Environmental research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Assessment of retrospective exposures based on expert judgment in case-control studies is usually of unknown validity because of the difficulty in finding gold standards for comparison. We investigated the relationship between expert-assigned retrospective occupational polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) exposure estimates and serum PCB concentrations. Analyses were conducted on a subset of cases (n = 94) and controls (n = 96) in the multi-center National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Case-Control Study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Based on the subjects' lifetime work histories, an industrial hygienist assigned each job a probability of PCB exposure [<5% (unexposed), 5-<50% (possibly exposed), ≥50% (probably exposed)]. Ordinary least squares regression was used to investigate associations between the probability rating and log-transformed lipid-adjusted serum levels of 14 PCB congeners and total PCBs (ΓPCBs). Compared to unexposed participants (n = 163), those with a probably exposed job (n = 7) had serum levels that were 87% higher for ΓPCBs (95% confidence interval: 1.33-2.62) and 38% of serum level variability was explained by the probability rating. Statistically significant associations between probability ratings and serum levels for 12 of 14 individual congeners were also observed. In summary, the observed contrast in PCB serum levels by probability rating provides support for the occupational PCB exposure assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.