Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130188›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2020

Improving Exposure Assessment Methodologies for Epidemiological Studies on Pesticides: Study Protocol.

Kate Jones, Ioannis Basinas, Hans Kromhout, Martie van Tongeren, Anne-Helen Harding, John W Cherrie, Andrew Povey, Zulkhairul Naim Sidek Ahmad, Samuel Fuhrimann, Johan Ohlander and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Reproductive Health Risks Associated with Occupational and Environmental Exposure to Pesticides.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  7. "Good Epidemiology Practice" Guidelines for Pesticide Exposure Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kate JonesHealth and Safety Executive, Buxton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8923-2999
Ioannis BasinasCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7708-3017
Hans KromhoutInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4233-1890
Martie van TongerenCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1205-1898
Anne-Helen HardingHealth and Safety Executive, Buxton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4232-2986
John W CherrieCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8901-6890
Andrew PoveyCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9127-8328
Zulkhairul Naim Sidek AhmadCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0681-5900
Samuel FuhrimannInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1861-1737
Johan OhlanderInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4279-2563
Roel VermeulenInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4082-8163
Karen S GaleaCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9540-8513
Utrecht University · NLManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBHSE Science and Research Centre · GBInstitute of Occupational Medicine · GBHeriot-Watt University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExposure to certain pesticides has been associated with several chronic diseases. However, to determine the role of pesticides in the causation of such diseases, an assessment of historical exposures is required. Exposure measurement data are rarely available; therefore, assessment of historical exposures is frequently based on surrogate self-reported information, which has inherent limitations. Understanding the performance of the applied surrogate measures in the exposure assessment of pesticides is therefore important to allow proper evaluation of the risks.

objectiveThe Improving Exposure Assessment Methodologies for Epidemiological Studies on Pesticides (IMPRESS) project aims to assess the reliability and external validity of the surrogate measures used to assign exposure within individuals or groups of individuals, which are frequently based on self-reported data on exposure determinants. IMPRESS will also evaluate the size of recall bias on the misclassification of exposure to pesticides; this in turn will affect epidemiological estimates of the effect of pesticides on human health.

methodsThe IMPRESS project will recruit existing cohort participants from previous and ongoing research studies primarily of epidemiological origin from Malaysia, Uganda, and the United Kingdom. Consenting participants of each cohort will be reinterviewed using an amended version of the original questionnaire addressing pesticide use characteristics administered to that cohort. The format and relevant questions will be retained but some extraneous questions from the original (eg, relating to health) will be excluded for ethical and practical reasons. The reliability of pesticide exposure recall over different time periods (<2 years, 6-12 years, and >15 years) will then be evaluated. Where the original cohort study is still ongoing, participants will also be asked if they wish to take part in a new exposure biomonitoring survey, which involves them providing urine samples for pesticide metabolite analysis and completing questionnaire information regarding their work activities at the time of sampling. The participant's level of exposure to pesticides will be determined by analyzing the collected urine samples for selected pesticide metabolites. The biomonitoring measurement results will be used to assess the performance of algorithm-based exposure assessment methods used in epidemiological studies to estimate individual exposures during application and re-entry work.

resultsThe project was funded in September 2017. Enrollment and sample collection was completed for Malaysia in 2019 and is on-going for Uganda and the United Kingdom. Sample and data analysis will proceed in 2020 and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2021.

conclusionsThe study will evaluate the consistency of questionnaire data and accuracy of current algorithms in assessing pesticide exposures. It will indicate where amendments can be made to better capture exposure data for future epidemiology studies and thus improve the reliability of exposure-disease associations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/16448.

Indexed as

algorithmbiomonitoringepidemiologyoccupational exposurepesticidesquestionnaireurine

Identifiers

PMID32130188
PMCPMC7070347
OpenAlexW2996108133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.