PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9614768

Meta-analysis and occupational epidemiology.

Abstract

Meta-analysis is increasingly appearing in the epidemiologic literature. Although originally performed in the context of experimental or randomized controlled study designs and with regard to problems that are amenable to these designs, the method has also been applied to studies in observational epidemiologic settings. This movement has generated considerable debate about the validity of meta-analysis in observational studies, which can be said to be rather shaky. Meta-analysis is also appearing in occupational epidemiology, and a recent application to studies of industrial cohorts exposed to organic solvents has illustrated many of the arguments against meta-analysis of observational study. The propensity of meta-analysis for disarming critical approaches to individual study methods such as the standardized morbidity or mortality ratio (SMR) as effect measure, and to application of commonly used biostatistical techniques is illustrated. A cautionary note is sounded.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J E Myers, M L Thompson. 1998. Meta-analysis and occupational epidemiology.. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed%2F48.2.99

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cancer morbidity in iron and steel workers in Korea.

BACKGROUND: In the iron and steel industry, workers are potentially exposed to a number of carcinogens and are involved in a number of processes of a hazardous nature. The cancer morbidity of iron and steel workers from modern plants in a developing country is described. METHODS: Cancer morbidity at two Korean iron and steel complexes was analyzed using Poisson regression methods. Work histories were merged with the national cancer registry for 44,974 workers who were followed from 1988-2001. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-four cancers, in 1% of the population, were diagnosed over 14 years. Based on national cancer rates, the cohort exhibited a healthy worker effect for all cancer (SIR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.79-0.95) reflecting relative good health, particularly for lung cancer (SIR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0. 04-0.82), stomach cancer (SIR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.64-0.93), and liver cancer (SIR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.68-1.01). Lung cancer morbidity was significantly elevated at the affiliated plants versus the parent plants (SRR = 2.35, 95% CI = 1.07-4.92), and all-cancer morbidity was significantly elevated for maintenance workers compared to office and production workers (SRR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.00-1.60). Lymphohematopoietic cancer incidence was higher in the coke plants (SRR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.02-8.91) and stomach cancer incidence was higher in the maintenance departments (SRR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.05-2.56). CONCLUSIONS: This recent steelworker cohort exhibits possible excess cancer morbidity in some processing areas. Further follow-up of this cohort and alternate study designs such as case-control study will be needed to elucidate the relationship of exposure and health risks of iron and steel workers.

Healthy Worker Effect↗