ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2017
Occupational exposures and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): comparison of a COPD-specific job exposure matrix and expert-evaluated occupational exposures.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Industry 4.0-Compliant Occupational Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Prevention: Literature Review and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Review
- Development of a Job-Exposure Matrix for Ultrafine Particle Exposure: The MatPUF JEM.Annals of work exposures and health · 2021Review
- Incident chronic obstructive pulmonary disease associated with occupation, industry, and workplace exposures in the Health and Retirement Study.American journal of industrial medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Occupational exposure and airflow obstruction and self-reported COPD among ever-employed US adults using a COPD-job exposure matrix.American journal of industrial medicine · 2019Article
- Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Exposure to Diesel Exhaust in a Danish Cohort.American journal of epidemiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the occupational exposure levels assigned by our National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-specific job exposure matrix (NIOSH COPD JEM) and by expert evaluation of detailed occupational information for various jobs held by members of an integrated health plan in the Northwest USA.
methodsWe analysed data from a prior study examining COPD and occupational exposures. Jobs were assigned exposure levels using 2 methods: (1) the COPD JEM and (2) expert evaluation. Agreement (Cohen's κ coefficients), sensitivity and specificity were calculated to compare exposure levels assigned by the 2 methods for 8 exposure categories.
resultsκ indicated slight to moderate agreement (0.19-0.51) between the 2 methods and was highest for organic dust and overall exposure. Sensitivity of the matrix ranged from 33.9% to 68.5% and was highest for sensitisers, diesel exhaust and overall exposure. Specificity ranged from 74.7% to 97.1% and was highest for fumes, organic dust and mineral dust.
conclusionsThis COPD JEM was compared with exposures assigned by experts and offers a generalisable approach to assigning occupational exposure.
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.