Quality of evidence must guide risk assessment of asbestos

Annals of Occupational Hygiene

Volumn 56, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 879-887

  Lenters, Virissa ^a   Burdorf, Alex ^b   Vermeulen, Roel ^a   Stayner, Leslie ^c   Heederik, Dick ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

amphiboles; asbestos; chrysotile; epidemiology; exposure assessment; lung cancer; meta analysis; potency; risk assessment; study quality

Indexed keywords

AMPHIBOLES; CHRYSOTILE; EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT; LUNG CANCER; META-ANALYSIS; POTENCY;

ASBESTOS; BIOLOGICAL ORGANS; DISEASES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; ESTIMATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SERPENTINE;

QUALITY CONTROL;

AMPHIBOLE; ASBESTOS; CHRYSOTILE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHEMICALLY INDUCED DISORDER; HUMAN; LUNG TUMOR; MESOTHELIOMA; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

ADULT; ASBESTOS; ASBESTOS, AMPHIBOLE; ASBESTOS, SERPENTINE; HUMANS; LUNG NEOPLASMS; MESOTHELIOMA; OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE; RESEARCH; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84867802297     PISSN: 00034878     EISSN: 14753162     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mes065     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ahlbom A, Axelson O, Støttrup Hansen ES et al. (1990) Interpretation of "negative" studies in occupational epidemiology. Scand J Work Environ Health; 16: 153 - 7.
2. Armstrong BG. (1998) Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med; 55: 651 - 6.
3. Berman DW, Case BW. (2012) Overreliance on a single study: There is no real evidence that applying quality criteria to exposure in asbestos epidemiology affects the estimated risk. Ann Occup Hyg; 56: 869 - 78.
4. Berman DW, Crump KS. (2008a) A meta-analysis of asbestos-related cancer risk that addresses fiber size and mineral type. Crit Rev Toxicol; 38 Suppl 1: 49 - 73.
5. Berman DW, Crump KS. (2008b) Update of potency factors for asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma. Crit Rev Toxicol; 38 Suppl 1: 1 - 47.
6. Burdorf A, Heederik D. (2011) Applying quality criteria to exposure in asbestos epidemiology increases the estimated risk. Ann Occup Hyg; 55: 565 - 8.
7. Dement JM, Loomis D, Richardson D et al. (2011) Estimates of historical exposures by phase contrast and transmission electron microscopy for pooled exposure - response analyses of North Carolina and South Carolina, USA asbestos textile cohorts. Occup Environ Med; 68: 593 - 8.
8. Doll R, Peto J. (1985) Effects on health of exposure to asbestos. A review prepared at the request of the Health and Safety Commission. London: HMSO.
9. Gezondheidsraad. (2010) Asbestos - risks of environmental and occupational exposure. Report 2010/10E. The Hague:
10. Health Council of the Netherlands, Available at www.gezondheidsraad. nl/en/publications/asbestos-risks-environmentaland-occupational-exposure. Accessed on July 18, 2012.
11. Health Effects Institute. (1991) Asbestos in public and commercial buildings: A literature review and synthesis of current knowledge. HEI-Asbestos Research. Cambridge, MA: HEI.
12. Hein MJ, Stayner LT, Lehman E et al. (2007) Follow-up study of chrysotile textile workers: cohort mortality and exposure-response. Occup Environ Med; 64: 616 - 25.
13. Hodgson JT, Darnton A. (2000) The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure. Ann Occup Hyg; 44: 565 - 601.
14. Lenters V, Vermeulen R, Dogger S et al. (2011) A meta-analysis of asbestos and lung cancer: is better quality exposure assessment associated with steeper slopes of the exposure-response relationships? Environ Health Perspect; 119: 1547 - 55.
15. Loomis D, Dement JM, Elliott L et al. (2012) Increased lung cancer mortality among chrysotile asbestos textile workers is more strongly associated with exposure to long thin fibres. Occup Environ Med; 69: 564 - 8.
16. National Research Council (NRC). (1984) Asbestiform fibers: nonoccupational health risks. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. (2009) Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In Higgins JPT and Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 359 - 87.
18. Sullivan PA. (2007) Vermiculite, respiratory disease, and asbestos exposure in Libby, Montana: update of a cohort mortality study. Environ Health Perspect; 115: 579 - 85.
19. Swaen GM. (2006) A framework for using epidemiological data for risk assessment. Hum Exp Toxicol; 25: 147 - 55.
20. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: A comparison of methods. Stat Med; 18: 2693 - 708.
21. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1986) Airborne Asbestos Health Assessment Update. EPA 600/8 - 84/003F. Research Triangle Park, NC: Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office.
22. van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. (2002) Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med; 21: 589 - 624.
23. Vlaanderen J, Lan Q, Kromhout H et al. (2011) Occupational benzene exposure and the risk of lymphoma subtypes: A meta-analysis of cohort studies incorporating three study quality dimensions. Environ Health Perspect; 119: 159 - 67.
24. Vlaanderen J, Vermeulen R, Heederik D et al. (2008)Guidelines to evaluate human observational studies for quantitative risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect; 116: 1700 - 5.