Literature DB >> 16421931

Bladder cancer risk in sales workers: artefact or cause for concern?

Andrea 't Mannetje1, Neil Pearce.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A large number of epidemiological studies have reported positive associations between bladder cancer and sales occupations. We investigated whether these findings are likely to be due to chance, confounding or publication bias, or may involve causal associations.
METHODS: Studies reporting bladder cancer risk-estimates for sales occupations were reviewed. Using meta-analyses we assessed heterogeneity and publication bias, and derived summary estimates.
RESULTS: Eighteen publications were identified, reporting 85 risk-estimates for sales-work. Meta-estimates were elevated for men (odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.21) and women (OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.11-1.67). The estimate was heterogeneous for men (p(Q-test) <0.01, women: 0.18) and indicated publication bias for women (p(Egger-test) <0.01, men: 0.40). When including only smoking-adjusted estimates reported irrespective of the strength of the association, the summary estimate for generic groups of sales workers was 0.99 (95% CI 0.90-1.08) for men, and 1.18 (95% CI = 0.99-1.39) for women, without statistically significant heterogeneity or publication bias. For women, risk was positively associated with longer duration of sales-employment in three studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias explained most of the reported increased bladder cancer risk, but sales-work still appeared to be associated with a small risk in women. Possible causal factors include lower frequency of urination and reduced fluid intake. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16421931     DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ind Med        ISSN: 0271-3586            Impact factor:   2.214


  4 in total

1.  Occupational variation in incidence of bladder cancer: a comparison of population-representative cohorts from Nordic countries and Canada.

Authors:  Kishor Hadkhale; Jill MacLeod; Paul A Demers; Jan Ivar Martinsen; Elisabete Weiderpass; Kristina Kjaerheim; Elsebeth Lynge; Pär Sparen; Laufey Tryggvadottir; M Anne Harris; Michael Tjepkema; Paul A Peters; Eero Pukkala
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 2.692

2.  Risk of urinary bladder cancer: a case-control analysis of industry and occupation.

Authors:  Adrian Cassidy; Wei Wang; Xifeng Wu; Jie Lin
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 4.430

3.  Occupation, smoking, opium, and bladder cancer: A case-control study.

Authors:  Tayeb Ghadimi; Bahman Gheitasi; Sayran Nili; Mohammad Karimi; Ebrahim Ghaderi
Journal:  South Asian J Cancer       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep

Review 4.  Modifiable risk factors for the prevention of bladder cancer: a systematic review of meta-analyses.

Authors:  Abdulmohsen H Al-Zalabani; Kelly F J Stewart; Anke Wesselius; Annemie M W J Schols; Maurice P Zeegers
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 8.082

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.