The ghost of methods past: Exposure assessment versus job-exposure matrix studies

Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 2-3

  Burstyn, Igor ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEAD;

ALAD2 GENE; CANCER RISK; EDITORIAL; GENE; GENOTYPE; GLIOMA; HUMAN; HYGIENE; MENINGIOMA; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 78651399348     PISSN: 13510711     EISSN: 14707926     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/oem.2009.054585     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Gerin M, Siemiatycki J, Kemper H, et al. Obtaining occupational exposure histories in epidemiologic case-control studies. J Occup Med 1985;27:420-6.
2. Bhatti P, Stewart PA, Linet MS, et al. Comparison of occupational exposure assessment methods in a case-control study of lead, genetic susceptibility and risk of adult brain tumors. Occup Environ Med. Published Online First: 25 August 2010. doi:10.1136/oem.2009.048132.
3. Teschke K, Olshan AF, Daniels JL, et al. Occupational exposure assessment in case-control studies: opportunities for improvement. Occup Environ Med 2002;59:575-93; discussion 594.
4. Poole C. Low P-values or narrow confidence intervals: which are more durable? Epidemiology 2001;12:291-4.
5. Burstyn I. Does adjustment for measurement error induce positive bias if there is no true association? ArXiv > Statistics > Applications 2009. http://arxiv. org/abs/0902.1193v1 (accessed 27 Jul 2010).
6. Gustafson P, Le Nhu D. Comparing the effects of continuous and discrete covariate mismeasurement, with emphasis on the dichotomization of mismeasured predictors. Biometrics 2002;58:878-87. (Pubitemid 36133766)
7. Blair A, Stewart P, Lubin JH, et al. Methodological issues regarding confounding and exposure misclassification in epidemiological studies of occupational exposures. Am J Ind Med 2007;50:199-207. (Pubitemid 46363811)
8. Jurek AM, Maldonado G, Greenland S, et al. Exposure-measurement error is frequently ignored when interpreting epidemiologic study results. Eur J Epidemiol 2006;21:871-6. (Pubitemid 46197153)
9. Black J, Benke G, Smith K, et al. Artificial neural networks and job-specific modules to assess occupational exposure. Ann Occup Hyg 2004;48:595-600. (Pubitemid 39362595)
10. Fritschi L, Friesen MC, Glass D, et al. OccIDEAS: Retrospective occupational exposure assessment in community-based studies made easier. J Environ Public Health 2009. doi:10.1155/2009/957023.
11. Lillienberg L, Zock JP, Kromhout H, et al. A population-based study on welding exposures at work and respiratory symptoms. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52:107-15.
12. Liu J, Gustafson P, Cherry NM, et al. Bayesian analysis of a matched case-control study with expert prior information on both the misclassication of exposure and the exposure disease association. Stat Med 2009;28:3411-23.
13. Rice K. Full-likelihood techniques for misclassification of exposure in matched case control studies. Stat Med 2003;22:3177-94. (Pubitemid 37220626)
14. Rice K. Equivalence between conditional and mixture approaches to the Rasch model and matched case-control studies, with applications. J Am Stat Assoc 2004;99:510-22.
15. Prescott GJ, Garthwaite PH. Bayesian analysis of misclassified binary data from a matched case-control study with a validation sub-study. Stat Med 2005;24:379-401. Comment in: Stat Med. 2006 Feb 15;25(3):537-9; author reply 539-40.