Dong-Hee Koh1, Jun-Mo Nam2, Barry I Graubard2, Yu-Cheng Chen3, Sarah J Locke2, Melissa C Friesen4. 1. 1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA 3.National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang 410-769, Korea. 2. 1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. 3. 2.National Environmental Health Research Center, National Health Research Institutes, Taipei 11503, Taiwan. 4. 1.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA friesenmc@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The published literature provides useful exposure measurements that can aid retrospective exposure assessment efforts, but the analysis of this data is challenging as it is usually reported as means, ranges, and measures of variability. We used mixed-effects meta-analysis regression models, which are commonly used to summarize health risks from multiple studies, to predict temporal trends of blood and air lead concentrations in multiple US industries from the published data while accounting for within- and between-study variability in exposure. METHODS: We extracted the geometric mean (GM), geometric standard deviation (GSD), and number of measurements from journal articles reporting blood and personal air measurements from US worksites. When not reported, we derived the GM and GSD from other summary measures. Only industries with measurements in ≥2 time points and spanning ≥10 years were included in our analyses. Meta-regression models were developed separately for each industry and sample type. Each model used the log-transformed GM as the dependent variable and calendar year as the independent variable. It also incorporated a random intercept that weighted each study by a combination of the between- and within-study variances. The within-study variances were calculated as the squared log-transformed GSD divided by the number of measurements. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to obtain the regression parameters and between-study variances. RESULTS: The blood measurement models predicted statistically significant declining trends of 2-11% per year in 8 of the 13 industries. The air measurement models predicted a statistically significant declining trend (3% per year) in only one of the seven industries; an increasing trend (7% per year) was also observed for one industry. Of the five industries that met our inclusion criteria for both air and blood, the exposure declines per year tended to be slightly greater based on blood measurements than on air measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis provides a useful tool for synthesizing occupational exposure data to examine exposure trends that can aid future retrospective exposure assessment. Data remained too sparse to account for other exposure predictors, such as job category or sampling strategy, but this limitation may be overcome by using additional data sources. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society 2014.
OBJECTIVES: The published literature provides useful exposure measurements that can aid retrospective exposure assessment efforts, but the analysis of this data is challenging as it is usually reported as means, ranges, and measures of variability. We used mixed-effects meta-analysis regression models, which are commonly used to summarize health risks from multiple studies, to predict temporal trends of blood and air lead concentrations in multiple US industries from the published data while accounting for within- and between-study variability in exposure. METHODS: We extracted the geometric mean (GM), geometric standard deviation (GSD), and number of measurements from journal articles reporting blood and personal air measurements from US worksites. When not reported, we derived the GM and GSD from other summary measures. Only industries with measurements in ≥2 time points and spanning ≥10 years were included in our analyses. Meta-regression models were developed separately for each industry and sample type. Each model used the log-transformed GM as the dependent variable and calendar year as the independent variable. It also incorporated a random intercept that weighted each study by a combination of the between- and within-study variances. The within-study variances were calculated as the squared log-transformed GSD divided by the number of measurements. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to obtain the regression parameters and between-study variances. RESULTS: The blood measurement models predicted statistically significant declining trends of 2-11% per year in 8 of the 13 industries. The air measurement models predicted a statistically significant declining trend (3% per year) in only one of the seven industries; an increasing trend (7% per year) was also observed for one industry. Of the five industries that met our inclusion criteria for both air and blood, the exposure declines per year tended to be slightly greater based on blood measurements than on air measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis provides a useful tool for synthesizing occupational exposure data to examine exposure trends that can aid future retrospective exposure assessment. Data remained too sparse to account for other exposure predictors, such as job category or sampling strategy, but this limitation may be overcome by using additional data sources. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society 2014.
Authors: Susan Peters; Roel Vermeulen; Lützen Portengen; Ann Olsson; Benjamin Kendzia; Raymond Vincent; Barbara Savary; Jérôme Lavoué; Domenico Cavallo; Andrea Cattaneo; Dario Mirabelli; Nils Plato; Joelle Fevotte; Beate Pesch; Thomas Brüning; Kurt Straif; Hans Kromhout Journal: J Environ Monit Date: 2011-10-14
Authors: Melissa C Friesen; Dong-Uk Park; Joanne S Colt; Dalsu Baris; Molly Schwenn; Margaret R Karagas; Karla R Armenti; Alison Johnson; Debra T Silverman; Patricia A Stewart Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Gila Neta; Patricia A Stewart; Preetha Rajaraman; Misty J Hein; Martha A Waters; Mark P Purdue; Claudine Samanic; Joseph B Coble; Martha S Linet; Peter D Inskip Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Joanne S Colt; Melissa C Friesen; Patricia A Stewart; Park Donguk; Alison Johnson; Molly Schwenn; Margaret R Karagas; Karla Armenti; Richard Waddell; Castine Verrill; Mary H Ward; Laura E Beane Freeman; Lee E Moore; Stella Koutros; Dalsu Baris; Debra T Silverman Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Sarah J Locke; Nicole C Deziel; Dong-Hee Koh; Barry I Graubard; Mark P Purdue; Melissa C Friesen Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Javier Vila; Joseph D Bowman; Jordi Figuerola; David Moriña; Laurel Kincl; Lesley Richardson; Elisabeth Cardis Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Jean-François Sauvé; Joemy M Ramsay; Sarah J Locke; Pamela J Dopart; Pabitra R Josse; Dennis D Zaebst; Paul S Albert; Kenneth P Cantor; Dalsu Baris; Brian P Jackson; Margaret R Karagas; Gm Monawar Hosain; Molly Schwenn; Alison Johnson; Mark P Purdue; Stella Koutros; Debra T Silverman; Melissa C Friesen Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2019-07-15 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Catherine L Callahan; Sarah J Locke; Pamela J Dopart; Patricia A Stewart; Kendra Schwartz; Julie J Ruterbusch; Barry I Graubard; Nathaniel Rothman; Jonathan N Hofmann; Mark P Purdue; Melissa C Friesen Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Nicole C Deziel; Laura E Beane Freeman; Barry I Graubard; Rena R Jones; Jane A Hoppin; Kent Thomas; Cynthia J Hines; Aaron Blair; Dale P Sandler; Honglei Chen; Jay H Lubin; Gabriella Andreotti; Michael C R Alavanja; Melissa C Friesen Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Melissa C Friesen; Hyoyoung Choo-Wosoba; Philippe Sarazin; Jooyeon Hwang; Pamela Dopart; Daniel E Russ; Nicole C Deziel; Jérôme Lavoué; Paul S Albert; Bin Zhu Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.563