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...
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 assessment methodology should be employed, such as job-exposure
matrices (JEMs) or expert assessments of self-reported work histories.
Even though the relationships between the true exposure and estimates by
expert assessment and a JEM are unknown (which is the case for most
exposure assessments) we believe that understanding the differences
between the two methods is informative, especially given the considerable
time and resources necessary to carry out an expert assessment.
As Dr. Burstyn indicates (1), neither assessment approach used in our
study (2) allows us to claim that lead definitely causes brain tumors.
However, if this is the standard for judging the success of an exposure
assessment method, most methods are failures. Although only suggestive, we
do see some evidence of an association and indicate that future studies
would benefit from the most accurate exposure assessment method available.
The intent of our analysis was to compare two widely used approaches and
to encourage epidemiologists to pursue the best exposure assessment
methods possible. We acknowledge limitations with the expert assessment
approach and strongly support the development and use of new exposure
assessment methods. However, expert assessment may be the best approach
available to an existing study and could reveal important associations
that future studies can explore in greater detail using more refined
exposure assessment techniques.
1. Burstyn I. The ghost of methods past: exposure assessment versus
job-exposure matrix studies. Occup Environ Med 2010.
2. Bhatti P, Stewart PA, Linet MS, Blair A, Inskip PD, Rajaraman P.
Comparison of occupational exposure assessment methods in a case-control
study of lead, genetic susceptibility and risk of adult brain tumours.
Occup Environ Med 2010.
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...
Pages