RETROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE .1. CASE-CONTROL ANALYSIS IN A STUDY OF LUNG-CANCER - EFFICIENCY OF JOB-SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRES AND JOB EXPOSURE MATRICES
RETROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE .1. CASE-CONTROL ANALYSIS IN A STUDY OF LUNG-CANCER - EFFICIENCY OF JOB-SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRES AND JOB EXPOSURE MATRICES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ije/22.supplement_2.s83
复制
发表时间：
1993-01-01
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
BERRINO, F
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
AHRENS, W;JOCKEL, KH;BERRINO, F
在德国北部的一项肺癌研究中，将从详细补充问卷 (SQ) 获得的石棉暴露评估与通过将两个工作暴露矩阵 (JEM) 应用于工作经历而获得的评估进行了比较。该研究包括 391 例男性病例和相同数量的来自普通人群的对照，并按性别、年龄和地区进行匹配。根据 JEM，近 16% 的受试者被认为从未接触过石棉，24% 的受试者被归类为确定接触过石棉，SO 方法的相应百分比为 68% 和 32%。正义与平等运动认为 60% 的人具有中等暴露概率。一般来说，当暴露定义仅限于明确的暴露时，不同方法之间的一致性更好，JEM 和 JEM 之间的比较相应的 Kappa 统计量为 0.67，JEM 和 SQ 之间的比较为 0.44/0.39。 SQ 和 JEM（参考）之间的正一致性从接触概率较低的受试者的 12% 和 17% 增加到接触概率确定的受试者的 61% 和 69%。根据累积暴露量的排名显示，三种方法中的每一种都存在某种剂量反应关系，SQ 方法的最高类别中吸烟调整 OR 为 1.85 (95% C[: 1.01-3.38)，两种 JEM 为 2.47 (95% CI: 1.40-4.37) 和 2.94 (95% C[: 1.73-4.99)。讨论结果时参考了方法之间的概念差异及其在未来研究中的潜在范围。
In a lung cancer study in Northern Germany the asbestos exposure assessment obtained from detailed supplementary questionnaires (SQ) was compared to the assessment obtained by the application of two job exposure matrices (JEM) to the job history. The study includes 391 incident male cases and the same number of controls from the general population, matched by sex, age, and region. Almost 16% of the subjects are considered as never having been exposed to asbestos and 24% are classified as certainty exposed according to both of the JEM, the corresponding percentages of the SO-method being 68% and 32%. Sixty per cent are considered by the JEM as having an intermediate probability of exposure. In general, the agreement between the different methods is better when the exposure definition is restricted to definite exposures, the corresponding Kappa statistic being 0.67 for the comparison between both JEM and 0.44/0.39 between the JEM and the SQ. The positive agreement between SQ and JEM (reference) increases from 12% and 17% for subjects with low probability of exposure to 61% and 69% for those with definite exposures. A ranking according to cumulative exposure shows some dose-response relationship for each of the three methods with a smoking-adjusted OR in the highest category of 1.85 (95% C[: 1.01-3.38) for the SQ method and 2.47 (95% CI: 1.40-4.37) and 2.94 (95% C[: 1.73-4.99) for the two JEM. The results are discussed with reference to the conceptual differences between the methods and their potential scope in future studies.