Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35393289›Full record

ReviewOccupational and environmental medicine2022

Impact of occupational pesticide exposure assessment method on risk estimates for prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Parkinson's disease: results of three meta-analyses.

Johan Ohlander, Samuel Fuhrimann, Ioannis Basinas, John W Cherrie, Karen S Galea, Andrew C Povey, Martie van Tongeren, Anne-Helen Harding, Kate Jones, Roel Vermeulen and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Non-International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Johan OhlanderInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands j.p.g.ohlander@uu.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-2563
Samuel FuhrimannInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1861-1737
Ioannis BasinasInstitute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7708-3017
John W CherrieInstitute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8901-6890
Karen S GaleaInstitute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Edinburgh, UK.
Andrew C PoveyCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Martie van TongerenCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1205-1898
Anne-Helen HardingHealth and Safety Executive, Harpur Hill, Buxton, UK.
Kate JonesHealth and Safety Executive, Harpur Hill, Buxton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8923-2999
Roel VermeulenInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4082-8163
Anke HussInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Hans KromhoutInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4233-1890

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessment of occupational pesticide exposure in epidemiological studies of chronic diseases is challenging. Biomonitoring of current pesticide levels might not correlate with past exposure relevant to disease aetiology, and indirect methods often rely on workers' imperfect recall of exposures, or job titles. We investigated how the applied exposure assessment method influenced risk estimates for some chronic diseases. In three meta-analyses the influence of exposure assessment method type on the summary risk ratio (sRR) of prostate cancer (PC) (25 articles), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (29 articles) and Parkinson's disease (PD) (32 articles) was investigated. Exposure assessment method types analysed were: group-level assessments (eg, job titles), self-reported exposures, expert-level assessments (eg, job-exposure matrices) and biomonitoring (eg, blood, urine). Additionally, sRRs were estimated by study design, publication year period and geographic location where the study was conducted. Exposure assessment method types were not associated with statistically significant different sRRs across any of the health outcomes. Heterogeneity in results varied from high in cancer studies to moderate and low in PD studies. Overall, case-control designs showed significantly higher sRR estimates than prospective cohort designs. Later NHL publications showed significantly higher sRR estimates than earlier. For PC, studies from North America showed significantly higher sRR estimates than studies from Europe. We conclude that exposure assessment method applied in studies of occupational exposure to pesticides appears not to have a significant effect on risk estimates for PC, NHL and PD. In systematic reviews of chronic health effects of occupational exposure to pesticides, epidemiological study design, publication year and geographic location, should primarily be considered.

Indexed as

Lymphoma, Non-HodgkinOccupational ExposureParkinson DiseasePesticidesProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMaleMeta-Analysis as TopicProspective StudiesPesticidesagricultureepidemiologymeta-analysisoccupational healthpesticides

Identifiers

PMID35393289
PMCPMC9304108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.