ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2021
Lifetime occupational exposure proportion estimation methods: a sensitivity analysis in the general population.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2021. 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.
- Attributable fraction and number of cancer cases attributed to occupational carcinogens in Iran in 2019.BMC public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo present a sensitivity analysis of the most widely used means of estimating lifetime occupational exposure proportion (LOEP) and their respective impacts on LOEP and population-attributable fraction (PAF) estimates.
methodsA French population-based sample with full job history (N = 10,010) was linked with four Matgéné job-exposure matrices: flour, cement, silica and benzene. LOEP and the 95% confidence interval were estimated using four methods: the maximum exposure probability during the career (Proba_max), two methods subdividing careers into job-periods (job-period_M1, job-period_M2) and one into job-years (job-year). To quantify differences between methods, percentages of variation were calculated for proportion values and PAF, and compared with published results for France using cross-sectional proportion multiplied by a factor.
resultsFor each agent, LOEP estimated from the maximum probability during the career (Proba_max) was consistently lower than proportion taking account of job-periods or job-years. LOEP on Proba_max for flour, cement, silica and benzene were, respectively, 4.4% 95% CI (4.0-4.7), 4.3% (3.9-4.6), 6.1% (5.7-6.5) and 3.9% (3.6-4.2). Percentage of variation ranged from 0 to 55.8% according to the agent. The number of cancer cases varied by a twofold factor for exposure to silica and lung cancer and by a fourfold factor for exposure to benzene and acute myeloid lymphoma.
conclusionsThe present study provides a description of several LOEP estimation methods based on exposure assessment over the entire career and describes their impact on PAF. For health monitoring purposes, we recommend to report a range of LOEP with low and high estimates obtained using job-periods (job-period_M1 and job-period_M2).
Indexed as
Identifiers
33847787What 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.