Dear Sir,This is in reference to the study[1] conducted on factory workers in Delhi. The authors found a nonsignificant difference between the risk factors for noncommunicable disease among the study participants and the comparison group. Moreover, they found factory workers to be having a better profile than nonfactory subjects, except for a couple of factors. It is appreciable both for the authors and for the journal, or, to be more specific, the editor, to publish nonsignificant findings. It must be noted that to publish negative results, journals like the “Journal of negative results,” “Journal of articles in support of the null hypothesis,” etc., have come up.I am here to give my comment for those who wish to perform studies in occupational settings, as has been performed by the authors of this study. The objective of performing a research in an occupational setting is to improve worker's health. To attain this objective, one has to study the occupational factors in detail, e.g., the occupational environment including physical and psychosocial aspects, shift work, stress and so on. Merely comparing the behavioral disorders among the workers with a comparison group, as is done in this study, will certainly not yield any such result that can be used for application for the prevention and control of diseases in the workers. Getting a significant or nonsignificant finding is not that important as is the methodology of performing a research. The authors have mentioned in the introductory portion of their study that an important factor that is gaining increasing curiosity among researchers is occupation, work environment and stress associated with it and to what extent it contributes to the development of noncommunicable diseases. Here, the authors have failed to satisfy this curiosity of researchers because they themselves have not studied such factors in the workers. Further, the question is of sample size. Is a sample of 74 participants sufficient to elicit difference among the groups? And, what about the details like how many workers were there in the factory and how many were excluded due to exclusion criteria? Here, I would like to comment on the exclusion criteria of 1 year, which the authors have mentioned. Is 1 year exposure in a factory sufficient to put an individual at risk of developing noncommunicable diseases? And, if so, which are those risk factors? The authors also did not mention the type of work that the workers under study were involved in and was it that work or some exposure that was a risk factor. One more factor that I think was very important to consider is the duration of service of the workers in that factory.The article has a long list of recent references. All the references except one are of the past 10 years. Most of the references that the authors have reviewed have studied some or the other aspect of occupational environment. For instance, Golmohammadi et al.[2] have studied occupational stress using a questionnaire. Amidu et al.[3] have studied the type of work in which the workers of the automobile industry were involved. Mou et al.[4] have taken into consideration the duration of working hours and the duration of rest. Mehan et al.[5] have studied the type of activity involved at the work place of the industrial workers and their mode of transport for going to the work place. Taking so many occupational factors into consideration constitutes a research in occupational setting. Missing those factors and merely comparing the demographic and behavioral factors among workers with the comparison group has just given an occupational tinge to the study performed by the authors. It should not be forgotten that occupational health not only deals with work-related disorders or diseases but it also encompasses all factors that affect workers’ health.[6] Researchers keen to study industrial workers are suggested to perform an in-depth study of these factors because their findings show a path toward achieving a healthy occupational environment.