Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Occupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2018 Nov 12;62(9):1047-1063. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxy080.
INTRODUCTION: Retrospective occupational exposure assessment has been challenging in case-control studies in the general population. We aimed to review (i) trends of different assessment methods used in the last 40 years and (ii) evidence of reliability for various assessment methods.
METHODS: Two separate literature reviews were conducted. We first reviewed all general population cancer case-control studies published from 1975 to 2016 to summarize the exposure assessment approach used. For the second review, we systematically reviewed evidence of reliability for all methods observed in the first review.
RESULTS: Among the 299 studies included in the first review, the most frequently used assessment methods were self-report/assessment (n = 143 studies), case-by-case expert assessment (n = 139), and job-exposure matrices (JEMs; n = 82). Usage trends for these methods remained relatively stable throughout the last four decades. Other approaches, such as the application of algorithms linking questionnaire responses to expert-assigned exposure estimates and modelling of exposure with historical measurement data, appeared in 21 studies that were published after 2000. The second review retrieved 34 comparison studies examining methodological reliability. Overall, we observed slightly higher median kappa agreement between exposure estimates from different expert assessors (0.6) than between expert estimates and exposure estimates from self-reports (0.5) or JEMs (~0.4). However, reported reliability measures were highly variable for different methods and agents. Limited evidence also indicates newer methods, such as assessment using algorithms and measurement-calibrated quantitative JEMs, may be as reliable as traditional methods.
CONCLUSION: The majority of current research assesses exposures in the population with similar methods as studies did decades ago. Though there is evidence for the development of newer approaches, more concerted effort is needed to better adopt exposure assessment methods with more transparency, reliability, and efficiency.
简介：在一般人群的病例对照研究中，回顾性职业暴露评估一直具有挑战性。我们旨在回顾（i）过去 40 年中使用的不同评估方法的趋势，以及（ii）各种评估方法的可靠性证据。
方法：进行了两次独立的文献综述。我们首先综述了 1975 年至 2016 年发表的所有一般人群癌症病例对照研究，以总结所使用的暴露评估方法。对于第二次综述，我们系统地回顾了第一次综述中观察到的所有方法的可靠性证据。
结果：在第一次综述中包括的 299 项研究中，最常用的评估方法是自我报告/评估（n=143 项研究）、逐个病例的专家评估（n=139 项研究）和职业暴露矩阵（JEM；n=82 项研究）。这些方法的使用趋势在过去四十年中相对稳定。其他方法，如应用将问卷回答与专家分配的暴露估计值相链接的算法以及使用历史测量数据对暴露进行建模，出现在 2000 年后发表的 21 项研究中。第二次综述检索到 34 项比较研究，以检验方法学可靠性。总体而言，我们观察到不同专家评估者之间的暴露估计值的中位数kappa 一致性略高（0.6），而专家估计值与自我报告（0.5）或 JEM（~0.4）之间的暴露估计值之间的一致性略高。然而，不同方法和剂的报告可靠性指标差异很大。有限的证据还表明，评估使用算法和经测量校准的定量 JEM 等较新方法可能与传统方法一样可靠。
结论：当前大多数研究都使用与几十年前的研究类似的方法来评估人群中的暴露。尽管有证据表明开发了新方法，但需要更加努力地采用更透明，更可靠和更高效的暴露评估方法。
Occup Environ Med. 2019-3-20
Ann Occup Hyg. 2011-10
Occup Environ Med. 2002-9
Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2025-2-7
BMC Public Health. 2025-2-26
BMC Public Health. 2025-2-5
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2025-1
Ann Occup Hyg. 2016-8
Ann Occup Hyg. 2016-8
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015
Zotero 插件