Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29415273›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2018

Characterization of the Selective Recording of Workplace Exposure Measurements into OSHA's IMIS Databank.

Philippe Sarazin, Igor Burstyn, Laurel Kincl, Melissa C Friesen, Jérôme Lavoué

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

5 authors.

Philippe SarazinChemical and Biological Hazards Prevention, Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Igor BurstynEnvironmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Laurel KinclCollege of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States.
Melissa C FriesenDivision of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, United States.
Jérôme LavouéDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Health, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: The Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) is the largest multi-industry source of exposure results available in North America. In 2010, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released the Chemical Exposure Health Data (CEHD) that contains analytical results of samples collected by OSHA inspectors. However, the two databanks only partially overlap, raising suspicion of bias in IMIS data. We investigated the factors associated with selective recording of CEHD results into the IMIS databank. Methods: This analysis was based on personal exposure measurements of 24 agents from 1984 to 2009. The association between nine variables (level of exposure coded as detected versus non-detected (ND), whether a sampling result was part of a panel of chemicals, duration of sampling, issuance of a citation, presence of other detected levels during the same inspection, year, OSHA region, amount of penalty, and establishment size) and a CEHD sampling result being reported in IMIS was analyzed using modified Poisson regression. Results: A total of 461900 CEHD sampling results were examined. The proportion of CEHD sampling results recorded into IMIS was 38% (51% for detected and 28% for ND measurements). In the models, the detected sampling results were associated with a higher probability of recording into IMIS than ND sampling results, and this difference was similar for panel versus non-panel samples. Probability of recording remained constant from 1984 to 2009 for sampling results measured on panels but increased for sampling results of single determinations of an agent. Some OSHA regions had probability of recording two times higher than others. No other variables that we examined were associated with a CEHD sampling result being reported in IMIS. Conclusions: Our results indicate that the under-reporting of sampling results in IMIS is differential: ND results (especially those determined from the panels) seem less likely to be recorded in IMIS than other results. It is important to consider both IMIS and CEHD data in order to reduce bias in evaluation of exposures in workplaces inspected by OSHA.

Indexed as

IndustryChemical SafetyDatabases, FactualHazardous SubstancesHumansManagement Information SystemsOccupational ExposureUnited StatesUnited States Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationWorkplaceHazardous Substances

Identifiers

PMID29415273
PMCPMC6354673

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.