Selikoff I J, Seidman H
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, City University of New York, NY 10029-6574.
Am J Ind Med. 1992;22(4):481-92. doi: 10.1002/ajim.4700220403.
There is extensive information on discordance in general between accuracy of medical diagnoses on death certificate categorization of cause of death and available clinical and histopathological data. This is as true for occupational disease as for other conditions. But occupational illnesses bear a special problem. Discordance is not equal across the board--it may vary with each occupationally related disease, and no single formula can be applied. It may be high for angiosarcoma and low for acute hydrogen sulfide poisoning, low for bladder cancer, high for unsuspected methyl mercury poisoning. We have found that for one agent--asbestos--there were different rates of discordance for different asbestos-related diseases (e.g., lung cancer, mesothelioma, asbestosis, kidney cancer) among 4,951 deaths studied prospectively from 1967 to 1986. Caution is therefore required before accepting generalizations concerning (unstudied) discordance in occupational mortality studies, and in their use in risk assessment models.
关于死亡证明上死因分类的医学诊断准确性与现有的临床和组织病理学数据之间总体上存在广泛的不一致信息。职业病与其他疾病情况一样都是如此。但职业病存在一个特殊问题。不一致并非在所有方面都是相同的——它可能因每种与职业相关的疾病而有所不同,而且没有单一的公式可以适用。血管肉瘤的不一致率可能很高,急性硫化氢中毒的不一致率可能很低,膀胱癌的不一致率可能很低,未被怀疑的甲基汞中毒的不一致率可能很高。我们发现,对于一种致病因素——石棉——在1967年至1986年对4951例死亡进行前瞻性研究中,不同的石棉相关疾病(如肺癌、间皮瘤、石棉肺、肾癌)的不一致率有所不同。因此,在接受关于职业死亡率研究中(未经研究的)不一致性的一般结论及其在风险评估模型中的应用之前,需要谨慎。