@article {OddoneA53, author = {O E Oddone and C P Crosignani and S A Scaburri and B E Bai and M C Modonesi and I M Imbriani}, title = {157 Occupation and cancer: an alternative tool for evaluating the evidences}, volume = {70}, number = {Suppl 1}, pages = {A53--A53}, year = {2013}, doi = {10.1136/oemed-2013-101717.157}, publisher = {BMJ Publishing Group Ltd}, abstract = {Objectives Meta-analysis and pooled analysis are considered as a gold standard to summarise and to sift the biomedical evidences. In the framework of the Occupational Cancer Monitoring (OCCAM), it was developed a tool to assess the existence of an association between industrial sectors and cancer risk of a specific site so called {\textquotedblleft}Literature Matrix{\textquotedblright} (LM), storing only positive literature results. The aim of this work is to challenge the adjusted results of this tool with those of meta-analysis studies. Methods To evaluate the effectiveness of LM to provide useful summary risk estimates, we compared formal meta analyses with the set of {\textquotedblleft}positive{\textquotedblright} results provided by the matrix. Among the several associations provided in LM, some were selected for present study. For this exploratory study we limited comparisons to 7 areas: agriculture and hematopoietic cancers as a whole, agriculture and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), agriculture and leukemia, agriculture and multiple myeloma, transports sector and female breast cancer (compared with two different meta-analysis), transports sector and lung cancer and painters and bladder cancer. Results LM data, after adjustment with trim and fill method, show a substantial agreement with the correspondent meta-analysis, although results driven from LM data tend to an expected overestimation, but in most cases very slight. Results from LM data are always included between the limits of 95\% CI of the correspondent meta-analysis, with the exception of Agriculture/NHL and Agriculture/All hematopoietic cancers. Results from LM data not adjusted are constantly farer from meta-analytic results, with the only exception of Painter/Bladder cancer analysis. Conclusions The collection of only positive results derived from the scientific literature, and the use of an appropriate statistical correction, allows for a useful estimation of cancer risk by site and economic branch and it can be used for interpreting results of surveillance systems and for public health purposes.}, issn = {1351-0711}, URL = {https://oem.bmj.com/content/70/Suppl_1/A53.1}, eprint = {https://oem.bmj.com/content/70/Suppl_1/A53.1.full.pdf}, journal = {Occupational and Environmental Medicine} }