Cited by 52

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Mesothelioma Among Brake Mechanics: An Expanded Analysis of a Case‐Control Study

Hessel, Patrick A., Teta, M. Jane, Goodman, Michael, Lau, Edmund·2004·Risk Analysis

Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has begun discussions to consider its assessment of asbestos toxicity related to mineral form and fiber size. Brake workers are typically exposed to short chrysotile fibers. To explore the mesothelioma risk among brake workers, considering other occupational exposures to asbestos, data from a study that was published previously were obtained and the analysis was extended. The National Cancer Institute provided data from a case‐control study of mesothelioma. Because many participants with a history of brake work also had employment in other asbestos‐related occupations, mesothelioma cases and controls were compared for a history of brake work, controlling for employment in eight occupations with potential asbestos exposure. A stratified analysis was also performed excluding those with any of the eight occupations. Possible interactions between brake work and other occupational exposures related to risk of mesothelioma were also examined. The odds ratio (OR) for employment in brake installation or repair was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.30–1.60) when controlled for insulation or shipbuilding. When a history of employment in any of the eight occupations with potential asbestos exposure was controlled, the OR was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.36–1.80). ORs did not increase with increasing duration of brake work. Exclusion of those with any of the eight exposures resulted in an OR of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.01–4.71) for occupational brake work. There was no evidence of an interaction between brake work and other occupational exposures. These latter analyses were based on small numbers of exposed cases. The results are consistent with the existing literature indicating that brake work does not increase the risk of mesothelioma and adds to the evidence that fiber type and size are important determinants of mesothelioma risk.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00458.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. United States Federal Register, 2003, Peer consultation workshop on a proposed asbestos cancer risk assessment, Federal Register, 68
  2. Hodgson J., 2000, The quantitative risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure, Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 44, 565, 10.1016/S0003-4878(00)00045-4 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1007/PL00014627 · DOI
  4. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00312.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1002/ajim.4700100108 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/1097-0142(19801001)46:7<1650::AID-CNCR2820460726>3.0.CO;2-Y · DOI
  7. Teta M. J., 1983, Mesothelioma in Connecticut, 1955–1977, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 24, 749
  8. 10.1093/annhyg/38.4.635 · DOI
  9. 10.1136/oem.52.11.775 · DOI
  10. Teschke K., 1997, Mesothelioma surveillance to locate sources of exposure to asbestos, Canadian Journal of Public Health, 88, 163, 10.1007/BF03403881 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(200002)37:2<159::AID-AJIM1>3.0.CO;2-0 · DOI
  12. 10.1093/annhyg/41.inhaled_particles_VIII.129 · DOI
  13. 10.1006/rtph.2001.1491 · DOI
  14. 10.1136/oem.51.12.804 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1093/annhyg/41.6.699 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1965.tb41097.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hessel, P. A., Teta, M. J., Goodman, M., & Lau, E.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-06
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
547-552
ISSN
  • 0272-4332
  • 1539-6924
Cited by
52
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review