ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2017
Contribution of job-exposure matrices for exposure assessment in occupational safety and health monitoring systems: application from the French national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development of a Job-Exposure Matrix for Assessment of Occupational Exposure to High-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (3 kHz-300 GHz).Annals of work exposures and health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo detect new hazards ("signals"), occupational health monitoring systems mostly rest on the description of exposures in the jobs held and on reports by medical doctors; these are subject to declarative bias. Our study aims to assess whether job-exposure matrices (JEMs) could be useful tools for signal detection by improving exposure reporting.
methodsUsing the French national occupational disease surveillance and prevention network (RNV3P) data from 2001 to 2011, we explored the associations between disease and exposure prevalence for 3 well-known pathology/exposure couples and for one debatable couple. We compared the associations measured when using physicians' reports or applying the JEMs, respectively, for these selected diseases and across non-selected RNV3P population or for cases with musculoskeletal disorders, used as two reference groups; the ratio of exposure prevalences according to the two sources of information were computed for each disease category.
resultsOur population contained 58,188 subjects referred with pathologies related to work. Mean age at diagnosis was 45.8 years (95% CI 45.7; 45.9), and 57.2% were men. For experts, exposure ratios increase with knowledge on exposure causality. As expected, JEMs retrieved more exposed cases than experts (exposure ratios between 12 and 194), except for the couple silica/silicosis, but not for the MSD control group (ratio between 0.2 and 0.8).
conclusionsJEMs enhanced the number of exposures possibly linked with some conditions, compared to experts' assessment, relative to the whole database or to a reference group; they are less likely to suffer from declarative bias than reports by occupational health professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28299449What 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.