Responses

PDF
The ghost of methods past: exposure assessment versus job–exposure matrix studies
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    RE: The ghost of methods past: exposure assessment versus job-exposure matrix studies
    • Parveen Bhatti, Assistant Professor
    • Other Contributors:
      • Patricia A. Stewart (2), Martha S. Linet (3), Peter D. Inskip (3), Aaron Blair (3), Preetha Rajaraman (3)

    Dr. Burstyn, in his commentary (1), underscores the critical importance of using the best exposure assessment methods possible to minimize misclassification. We agree about the value of expert formulated models for systematically and transparently documenting exposure assessment1, but caution that many existing studies may not be readily adapted to such model building. For such studies, the best alternative exposure ass...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.