Isabelle Deltour1, Amélie Massardier-Pilonchery2,3, Brigitte Schlehofer4,5, Klaus Schlaefer5, Martine Hours2, Joachim Schüz4. 1. Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150, Cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon Cedex 08, France. deltouri@iarc.fr. 2. University Claude Bernard Lyon 1 and IFSTTAR, Transport Work and Environmental Epidemiology Research and Surveillance Unit, UMRESTTE (UMR 14T9405), 8 Avenue Rockefeller, 69373, Lyon Cedex 08, France. 3. Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France. 4. Section of Environment and Radiation, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150, Cours Albert Thomas, 69372, Lyon Cedex 08, France. 5. Unit of Environmental Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Centre, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To validate self-reported occupational loud noise exposure against expert evaluation of noise levels in a French case-control study on acoustic neuroma and to estimate the impact of exposure misclassification on risk estimation. METHODS: Noise levels were evaluated in 1006 jobs held by 111 cases and 217 population controls by an expert. Case-control differences in self-reporting were analyzed with logistic models. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and observed agreement of the self-reports were computed relative to the expert evaluation. They were used to calibrate the odds ratio (OR) between lifetime ever occupational loud noise exposure and the risk of acoustic neuroma, without adjustment for measurement error of the expert assessments. RESULTS: Cases reported noise levels in individual jobs closer to the expert assessment than controls, but the case-control difference was small for lifetime exposures. For expert-rated exposure of 80 dB(A), reporting of individual jobs by cases was more sensitive (54% in cases, 37% in controls), whereas specificity (91% in cases, 93% in controls) and observed agreement (82% in cases, 81% in controls) were similar. When lifetime exposure was considered, sensitivity increased (76% in cases, 65% in controls), while cases specificity decreased (84%). When these values were used to calibrate self-reports for exposure misclassification compared to expert evaluation at 80 dB(A), the crude OR of 1.7 was reduced to 1.3. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively accurate reporting of loud noise, the impact of the calibration on the OR was non-negligible.
OBJECTIVES: To validate self-reported occupational loud noise exposure against expert evaluation of noise levels in a French case-control study on acoustic neuroma and to estimate the impact of exposure misclassification on risk estimation. METHODS: Noise levels were evaluated in 1006 jobs held by 111 cases and 217 population controls by an expert. Case-control differences in self-reporting were analyzed with logistic models. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and observed agreement of the self-reports were computed relative to the expert evaluation. They were used to calibrate the odds ratio (OR) between lifetime ever occupational loud noise exposure and the risk of acoustic neuroma, without adjustment for measurement error of the expert assessments. RESULTS: Cases reported noise levels in individual jobs closer to the expert assessment than controls, but the case-control difference was small for lifetime exposures. For expert-rated exposure of 80 dB(A), reporting of individual jobs by cases was more sensitive (54% in cases, 37% in controls), whereas specificity (91% in cases, 93% in controls) and observed agreement (82% in cases, 81% in controls) were similar. When lifetime exposure was considered, sensitivity increased (76% in cases, 65% in controls), while cases specificity decreased (84%). When these values were used to calibrate self-reports for exposure misclassification compared to expert evaluation at 80 dB(A), the crude OR of 1.7 was reduced to 1.3. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively accurate reporting of loud noise, the impact of the calibration on the OR was non-negligible.
Authors: K Teschke; A F Olshan; J L Daniels; A J De Roos; C G Parks; M Schulz; T L Vaughan Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Mathias Basner; Wolfgang Babisch; Adrian Davis; Mark Brink; Charlotte Clark; Sabine Janssen; Stephen Stansfeld Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Melissa C Friesen; Joseph B Coble; Hormuzd A Katki; Bu-Tian Ji; Shouzheng Xue; Wei Lu; Patricia A Stewart Journal: Ann Occup Hyg Date: 2011-04-21
Authors: Maryam Hormozi; Alireza Ansari-Moghaddam; Ramazan Mirzaei; Javid Dehghan Haghighi; Fatemeh Eftekharian Journal: Int J Occup Med Environ Health Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 1.843
Authors: Parveen Bhatti; Patricia A Stewart; Martha S Linet; Aaron Blair; Peter D Inskip; Preetha Rajaraman Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Noah S Seixas; Rick Neitzel; Bert Stover; Lianne Sheppard; Patrick Feeney; David Mills; Sharon Kujawa Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: Elisabeth Cardis; Lesley Richardson; Isabelle Deltour; Bruce Armstrong; Maria Feychting; Christoffer Johansen; Monique Kilkenny; Patricia McKinney; Baruch Modan; Siegal Sadetzki; Joachim Schüz; Anthony Swerdlow; Martine Vrijheid; Anssi Auvinen; Gabriele Berg; Maria Blettner; Joseph Bowman; Julianne Brown; Angela Chetrit; Helle Collatz Christensen; Angus Cook; Sarah Hepworth; Graham Giles; Martine Hours; Ivano Iavarone; Avital Jarus-Hakak; Lars Klaeboe; Daniel Krewski; Susanna Lagorio; Stefan Lönn; Simon Mann; Mary McBride; Kenneth Muir; Louise Nadon; Marie-Elise Parent; Neil Pearce; Tiina Salminen; Minouk Schoemaker; Brigitte Schlehofer; Jack Siemiatycki; Masao Taki; Toru Takebayashi; Tore Tynes; Martie van Tongeren; Paolo Vecchia; Joe Wiart; Alistair Woodward; Naohito Yamaguchi Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2007-07-18 Impact factor: 8.082