ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2022
Concordance of Occupational Exposure Assessment between the Canadian Job-Exposure Matrix (CANJEM) and Expert Assessment of Jobs Held by Women.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2022. 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.
- 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the exposure data generated by using the Canadian job-exposure matrix (CANJEM) with data generated by expert assessment, for jobs held by women.
methodsWe selected 69 occupational agents that had been assessed by experts for each of 3403 jobs held by 998 women in a population-based case-control study of lung cancer. We then assessed the same agents among the same jobs by linking their occupation codes to CANJEM and thereby derived probability of exposure to each of the agents in each job. To create binary exposure variables, we dichotomized probability of exposure using two cutpoints: 25 and 50% (referred to as CANJEM-25% and CANJEM-50%). Using jobs as units of observation, we estimated the prevalence of exposure to each selected agent using CANJEM-25% and CANJEM-50%, and using expert assessment. Further, using expert assessment as the gold standard, for each agent, we estimated CANJEM's sensitivity, specificity, and kappa.
resultsCANJEM-based prevalence estimates correlated well with the prevalences assessed by the experts. When comparing CANJEM-based exposure estimates with expert-based exposure estimates, sensitivity, specificity, and kappa varied greatly among agents, and between CANJEM-25% and CANJEM-50% probability of exposure. With CANJEM-25%, the median sensitivity, specificity, and kappa values were 0.49, 0.99, and 0.46, respectively. Analogously, with CANJEM-50%, the corresponding values were 0.26, 1.00, and 0.35, respectively. For the following agents, we observed high concordance between CANJEM- and expert-based assessments (sensitivity ≥0.70 and specificity ≥0.99): fabric dust, cotton dust, synthetic fibres, cooking fumes, soldering fumes, calcium carbonate, and tin compounds. We present concordance estimates for each of 69 agents.
conclusionsConcordance between CANJEM and expert assessment varied greatly by agents. Our results indicate which agents provide data that mimic best those obtained with expert assessment.
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.