Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, risk of bias tools are used to evaluate epidemiologic studies as part of evidence synthesis (evidence integration), often involving meta-analyses. Some of these tools consider hypothetical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as gold standards. METHODS: We review the strengths and limitations of risk of bias assessments, in particular, for reviews of observational studies of environmental exposures, and we also comment more generally on methods of evidence synthesis. RESULTS: Although RCTs may provide a useful starting point to think about bias, they do not provide a gold standard for environmental studies. Observational studies should not be considered inherently biased vs. a hypothetical RCT. Rather than a checklist approach when evaluating individual studies using risk of bias tools, we call for identifying and quantifying possible biases, their direction, and their impacts on parameter estimates. As is recognized in many guidelines, evidence synthesis requires a broader approach than simply evaluating risk of bias in individual studies followed by synthesis of studies judged unbiased, or with studies given more weight if judged less biased. It should include the use of classical considerations for judging causality in human studies, as well as triangulation and integration of animal and mechanistic data. CONCLUSIONS: Bias assessments are important in evidence synthesis, but we argue they can and should be improved to address the concerns we raise here. Simplistic, mechanical approaches to risk of bias assessments, which may particularly occur when these tools are used by nonexperts, can result in erroneous conclusions and sometimes may be used to dismiss important evidence. Evidence synthesis requires a broad approach that goes beyond assessing bias in individual human studies and then including a narrow range of human studies judged to be unbiased in evidence synthesis. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6980

Global, regional and national burdens of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000-2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

A World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) systematic review reported sufficient evidence for higher risk of non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) amongst people occupationally exposed to solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR). This article presents WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of global, regional, national and subnational occupational exposures to UVR for 195 countries/areas and the global, regional and national attributable burdens of NMSC for 183 countries, by sex and age group, for the years 2000, 2010 and 2019. We calculated population-attributable fractions (PAFs) from estimates of the population occupationally exposed to UVR and the risk ratio for NMSC from the WHO/ILO systematic review. Occupational exposure to UVR was modelled via proxy of occupation with outdoor work, using 166 million observations from 763 cross-sectional surveys for 96 countries/areas. Attributable NMSC burden was estimated by applying the PAFs to WHO's estimates of the total NMSC burden. Measures of inequality were calculated. Globally in 2019, 1.6 billion workers (95 % uncertainty range [UR] 1.6-1.6) were occupationally exposed to UVR, or 28.4 % (UR 27.9-28.8) of the working-age population. The PAFs were 29.0 % (UR 24.7-35.0) for NMSC deaths and 30.4 % (UR 29.0-31.7) for disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Attributable NMSC burdens were 18,960 deaths (UR 18,180-19,740) and 0.5 million DALYs (UR 0.4-0.5). Men and older age groups carried larger burden. Over 2000-2019, attributable deaths and DALYs almost doubled. WHO and the ILO estimate that occupational exposure to UVR is common and causes substantial, inequitable and growing attributable burden of NMSC. Governments must protect outdoor workers from hazardous exposure to UVR and attributable NMSC burden and inequalities

Assessment and indirect adjustment for confounding by smoking in cohort studies using relative hazards models

International audienceWorkers' smoking histories are not measured in many occupational cohort studies. Here we discuss the use of negative control outcomes to detect and adjust for confounding in analyses that lack information on smoking. We clarify the assumptions necessary to detect confounding by smoking and the additional assumptions necessary to indirectly adjust for such bias. We illustrate these methods using data from 2 studies of radiation and lung cancer the Colorado Plateau cohort study (1950-2005) of underground uranium miners (in which smoking was measured) and a French cohort study (1950-2004) of nuclear industry workers (in which smoking was unmeasured). A cause-specific relative hazards model is proposed for estimation of indirectly adjusted associations. Among the miners, the proposed method suggests no confounding by smoking of the association between radon and lung cancer - a conclusion supported by adjustment for measured smoking. Among the nuclear workers, the proposed method suggests substantial confounding by smoking of the association between radiation and lung cancer. Indirect adjustment for confounding by smoking resulted in an 18% decrease in the adjusted estimated hazard ratio, yet this cannot be verified because smoking was unmeasured. Assumptions underlying this method are described, and a cause-specific proportional hazards model that allows easy implementation using standard software is presented. © 2014 The Author

Risk of bias assessments and evidence syntheses for observational epidemiologic studies of environmental and occupational exposures: Strengths and limitations

Background: Increasingly, risk of bias tools are used to evaluate epidemiologic studies as part of evidence synthesis (evidence integration), often involving meta-analyses. Some of these tools consider hypothetical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as gold standards. Methods: We review the strengths and limitations of risk of bias assessments, in particular, for reviews of observational studies of environmental exposures, and we also comment more generally on methods of evidence synthesis. Results: Although RCTs may provide a useful starting point to think about bias, they do not provide a gold standard for environmental studies. Observational studies should not be considered inherently biased vs. a hypothetical RCT. Rather than a checklist approach when evaluating individual studies using risk of bias tools, we call for identifying and quantifying possible biases, their direction, and their impacts on parameter estimates. As is recognized in many guidelines, evidence synthesis requires a broader approach than simply evaluating risk of bias in individual studies followed by synthesis of studies judged unbiased, or with studies given more weight if judged less biased. It should include the use of classical considerations for judging causality in human studies, as well as triangulation and integration of animal and mechanistic data. Conclusions: Bias assessments are important in evidence synthesis, but we argue they can and should be improved to address the concerns we raise here. Simplistic, mechanical approaches to risk of bias assessments, which may particularly occur when these tools are used by nonexperts, can result in erroneous conclusions and sometimes may be used to dismiss important evidence. Evidence synthesis requires a broad approach that goes beyond assessing bias in individual human studies and then including a narrow range of human studies judged to be unbiased in evidence synthesis

A roadmap towards a globally harmonized approach for occupational health surveillance and epidemiology in nanomaterial workers

Objective: Few epidemiological studies have addressed the health of workers exposed to novel manufactured nanomaterials. The small current workforces will necessitate pooling international cohorts. Method: A roadmap was defined for a globally harmonized framework for the careful choice of materials, exposure characterisation, identification of study populations, definition of health endpoints, evaluation of appropriateness of study designs, data collection and analysis, and interpretation of the results. Results: We propose a roadmap to reach global consensus on these issues. The proposed strategy should ensure that the costs of action are not disproportionate to the potential benefits, and that the approach is pragmatic and practical. Conclusions: We should aim to go beyond the collection of health complaints, illness statistics or even counts of deaths: the manifestation of such clear endpoints would indicate a failure of preventive measures

Mortality from circulatory diseases and other non-cancer outcomes among nuclear workers in France, the United Kingdom and the United States (inworks)

International audiencePositive associations between external radiation dose and non-cancer mortality have been found in a number of published studies, primarily of populations exposed to high-dose, high-dose-rate ionizing radiation. The goal of this study was to determine whether external radiation dose was associated with non-cancer mortality in a large pooled cohort of nuclear workers exposed to low-dose radiation accumulated at low dose rates. The cohort comprised 308,297 workers from France, United Kingdom and United States. The average cumulative equivalent dose at a tissue depth of 10 mm Hp(10) was 25.2 mSv. In total, 22% of the cohort were deceased by the end of follow-up, with 46,029 deaths attributed to non-cancer outcomes, including 27,848 deaths attributed to circulatory diseases. Poisson regression was used to investigate the relationship between cumulative radiation dose and non-cancer mortality rates. A statistically significant association between radiation dose and all non-cancer causes of death was observed excess relative risk per sievert (ERR/Sv) = 0.19; 90% CI 0.07, 0.30. This was largely driven by the association between radiation dose and mortality due to circulatory diseases (ERR/Sv = 0.22; 90% CI 0.08, 0.37), with slightly smaller positive, but nonsignificant, point estimates for mortality due to nonmalignant respiratory disease (ERR/Sv = 0.13; 90% CI -0.17, 0.47) and digestive disease (ERR/Sv = 0.11; 90% CI -0.36, 0.69). The point estimate for the association between radiation dose and deaths due to external causes of death was nonsignificantly negative (ERR = -0.12; 90% CI <-0.60, 0.45). Within circulatory disease subtypes, associations with dose were observed for mortality due to cerebrovascular disease (ERR/Sv = 0.50; 90% CI 0.12, 0.94) and mortality due to ischemic heart disease (ERR/Sv = 0.18; 90% CI 0.004, 0.36). The estimates of associations between radiation dose and non-cancer mortality are generally consistent with those observed in atomic bomb survivor studies. The findings of this study could be interpreted as providing further evidence that non-cancer disease risks may be increased by external radiation exposure, particularly for ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. However, heterogeneity in the estimated ERR/Sv was observed, which warrants further investigation. Further follow-up of these cohorts, with the inclusion of internal exposure information and other potential confounders associated with lifestyle factors, may prove informative, as will further work on elucidating the biological mechanisms that might cause these non-cancer effects at low doses. © 2017 by Radiation Research Society

Dose Estimation for a Study of Nuclear Workers in France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America Methods for the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS)

International audienceIn the framework of the International Nuclear Workers Study conducted in France, the UK and the U.S. (INWORKS), updated and expanded methods were developed to convert recorded doses of ionizing radiation to estimates of organ doses or individual personal dose equivalent [Hp(10)] for a total number of 308,297 workers, including 40,035 women. This approach accounts for differences in dosimeter response to predominant workplace energy and geometry of exposure and for the recently published ICRP report on dose coefficients for men and women separately. The overall mean annual individual personal dose equivalent, including zero doses, is 1.73 mSv [median = 0.42; interquartile range (IQR) 0.07, 1.59]. Associated individual organ doses were estimated. INWORKS includes workers who had potential for exposure to neutrons. Therefore, we analyzed neutron dosimetry data to identify workers potentially exposed to neutrons. We created a time-varying indicator for each worker, classifying them according to whether they had a positive recorded neutron dose and if so, whether their neutron dose ever exceeded 10% of their total external penetrating radiation dose. The number of workers flagged as being exposed to neutrons was 13% for the full cohort, with 15% of the cohort in France, 12% of the cohort in the UK and 14% in the U.S. We also used available information on in vivo and bioassay monitoring to identify workers with known depositions or suspected internal contaminations. As a result of this work, information is now available that will allow various types of sensitivity analyses. © 2015 by Radiation Research Society

Dose Estimation for a Study of Nuclear Workers in France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America Methods for the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS)

International audienceIn the framework of the International Nuclear Workers Study conducted in France, the UK and the U.S. (INWORKS), updated and expanded methods were developed to convert recorded doses of ionizing radiation to estimates of organ doses or individual personal dose equivalent [Hp(10)] for a total number of 308,297 workers, including 40,035 women. This approach accounts for differences in dosimeter response to predominant workplace energy and geometry of exposure and for the recently published ICRP report on dose coefficients for men and women separately. The overall mean annual individual personal dose equivalent, including zero doses, is 1.73 mSv [median = 0.42; interquartile range (IQR) 0.07, 1.59]. Associated individual organ doses were estimated. INWORKS includes workers who had potential for exposure to neutrons. Therefore, we analyzed neutron dosimetry data to identify workers potentially exposed to neutrons. We created a time-varying indicator for each worker, classifying them according to whether they had a positive recorded neutron dose and if so, whether their neutron dose ever exceeded 10% of their total external penetrating radiation dose. The number of workers flagged as being exposed to neutrons was 13% for the full cohort, with 15% of the cohort in France, 12% of the cohort in the UK and 14% in the U.S. We also used available information on in vivo and bioassay monitoring to identify workers with known depositions or suspected internal contaminations. As a result of this work, information is now available that will allow various types of sensitivity analyses. © 2015 by Radiation Research Society