eLetters

80 e-Letters

published between 2003 and 2006

  • Response to Weill et al.
    M Greenberg

    Dear Editor,

    In their reply to me (Weill et al, 2005), I stand reproved for ignorance and partisanship ("...more interested in the "adversarial spectrum than the science!"). Modesty precludes me from protesting the first, but I affirm that I have never been funded by industry or by unions to write opinions or conduct research on their behalf, nor have I been paid to assist them in litigation or to support or conte...

    Show More
  • Re: Occupation and malignant lymphoma
    Wenbin Liang

    Dear Editor,

    As it had been discussed in the study[1], selection bias may affect the validity of the result. In this case there would be selection bias, if the response rate in the survey associated with occupation, and the distribution of occupation among controls did not reflect that among the general population. However, if the response rate was independent from occupations, health status, other lifestyle, se...

    Show More
  • Comments on modelling longitudinal ordinal data
    Anna E Ekman

    Dear Editor,

    This article is presenting both the applied question and the statistical methods used in a very well organised and excellent way. Though, I have some comments on the use of the words risk, effect and predictor as these imply a casual relationship and make us believe that we model the development of neck pain.

    The data in the article is longitudinal and in the analysis the authors are using this...

    Show More
  • Authors' response to Kromhout
    S.M. Rappaport, Ph.D.

    The Editor,

    We appreciate Dr. Kromhout’s comments regarding our article “Air samples versus biomarkers for epidemiology”[1] and are pleased that he supports our recommendation that both air samples and biomarkers be collected whenever possible. Kromhout raises three points in his letter. First, he suggests that our conclusion that biomarkers tend to be better surrogates for exposures than air samples might have b...

    Show More
  • Air samples versus biomarkers for epidemiology: not so straightforward
    Hans Kromhout

    Dear Editor,

    Sir, the recent paper by Lin et al.[1] in the November issue of the journal was a thought provoking piece of work. In their paper the authors try to prove the theoretically derived hypothesis that biomarkers of exposure have smaller variance ratios and would typically provide less biased surrogates of exposure compared to air measurements. Although I entirely agree with the theoretical part of this s...

    Show More
  • Dust exposure and cardiovascular morbidity
    Bengt Sjögren

    Dear Editor,

    We have read the study on respiratory disease and cardiovascular morbidity by Koskela and coworkers with great interest.[1] They found no obvious effect of direct dust exposure on ischaemic heart disease (IHD) among granite workers and workers in metal industry such as foundry workers and iron foundry workers in Finland. Furthermore, there was a weak association between dust exposure and chronic bronc...

    Show More
  • Cancer risks in a historical UK cohort of benzene exposed workers
    Jeremy Beach

    Dear Editor

    We read with interest the article by Sorahan et al., “Cancer risks in a historical UK cohort of benzene exposed workers” [1]. We note that the authors showed an increased SMR and SRR for lung cancer among this group. They comment that “there was evidence of increased mortality for lung and lip cancers and for ANLL, and increased morbidity for lung and pleural cancers. There is no reason to suspect that benze...

    Show More
  • Reply to Dr Helen C Francis
    Giovanni Viegi

    Dear Editor

    We thank Helen C Francis for the interest in our article “Mould/dampness exposure at home is associated with respiratory disorders in Italian children and adolescents: the SIDRIA-2 Study” [1] and we appreciate her comments reported in the letter “The validity of self- reported measures of mould/dampness”, 21 September, 2005. We think it is difficult to compare our findings with those of Tavernier and co...

    Show More
  • The lesson of Delphi Survey for the implementation of training curricula for occupational physicians
    Carlo Signorelli

    Dear Editor,

    The interesting results of Delphi study (OEM 2005; 62: 406-413) underline the increasing importance of a specific training for physicians involved in the prevention of accidents and other work-related disorders and diseases. Although EU countries have similar legislation concerning activities and individual prevention on the workplace, training curricula for doctors involved in the health activities...

    Show More
  • Re: Authors' reply
    Wenbin Liang

    Dear Editor,

    I thank the authors for they reply.

    I was not against figure 1. Instead, I was concerning the second scenario in figure 1: people who had respiratory diseases would have a higher rate of IHD if they kept exposure to dust—there might be an interaction between respiratory diseases and dust exposure after. In the discussion of the paper it states that “The direct independent effect of dust exposu...

    Show More

Pages