ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2018
Agreement in Occupational Exposures Between Men and Women Using Retrospective Assessments by Expert Coders.
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 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterizing the Burden of Occupational Chemical Exposures by Sociodemographic Groups in the United States, 2021.American journal of public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To estimate the level of agreement and identify notable differences in occupational exposures (agents) between men and women from retrospective assessments by expert coders. Methods: Lifetime occupational histories of 1657 men and 2073 women from two case-control studies, were translated into exposure estimates to 243 agents, from data on 13882 jobs. Exposure estimates were summarized as proportions and frequency-weighted intensity of exposure for 59 occupational codes by sex. Agreement between metrics of exposure in men's and women's jobs was determined with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and weighted Kappa coefficients, using as unit of analysis ('cell') a combination of occupational code and occupational agent. 'Notable' differences between men and women were identified for each cell, according to a Bayesian hierarchical model for both proportion and frequency-weighted intensity of exposure. Results: For cells common to both men and women, the ICC for continuous probability of exposure was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.83-0.84) and 7.4% of cells showed notable differences with jobs held by men being more often exposed. A weighted kappa of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73) was calculated for intensity of exposure, and an ICC of 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62-0.71) for frequency-weighted intensity of exposure, with a tendency of higher values of exposure metrics in jobs held by men. Conclusions: Exposures were generally in agreement between men and women. Some notable differences were identified, most of them explained by differential sub-occupations or industries or dissimilar reported tasks within the studied occupations.
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.