Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Luce, D.
Right arrow Articles by Leclerc, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Luce, D.
Right arrow Articles by Leclerc, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 22, S113-S120, Copyright © 1993 by International Epidemiological Association

ARTICLES

Sources of discrepancies between a job exposure matrix and a case by case expert assessment for occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood-dust

D Luce, M Gerin, F Berrino, P Pisani and A Leclerc
INSERM U.88, Paris, France.

Two methods used for retrospective evaluation of occupational exposures, a case by case assessment by expert and the application of a job exposure matrix (JEM), are compared using occupational histories collected for a case-control study on sinonasal cancer. The objective was to identify the main sources of discrepancies and to contribute to an optimal use of a JEM for population-based case-control studies. Comparisons were based on job periods, and were performed separately for two substances: formaldehyde and wood-dust. Job periods were classified according to the category of exposure assigned by the matrix, and to the probability and level of exposure assessed by the study expert. The sources of discrepancies were examined for job periods probably or definitely exposed according to the JEM and unexposed for the expert, or unexposed in the JEM and probably or definitely exposed to medium or high level for the expert. Such discrepancies were observed for 8% of the job periods for formaldehyde and 3% of the job periods for wood-dust. The agreement between the two approaches was better for wood-dust than for formaldehyde. The relative importance of different sources of discrepancies was not the same for formaldehyde and wood-dust. For formaldehyde a substantial part of the discrepancies was due to disagreements between the study expert and the matrix experts, which were mostly differences in threshold limits between 'not exposed' and 'definitely exposed at a low level'. Differences between experts' opinions did not explain the discordances observed for wood-dust. The presence of additional information in the questionnaire was an important source of discrepancy for the two substances.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.