Table 4 Comparative performance of self-reported exposure to vapours, gas, dust and fumes and job-exposure matrix in multiple studies
Author (ref)Study populationComparisonFindings
Bakke et al11Cohort study, subjects with and without asthmaVGDF (gas and dust only) vs expert interview (no JEM used)Asthma vs all others: sensitivity 65% vs 64%; specificity 80% vs 91%
De Vocht et al14Cohort study, subjects with and without asthmaVGDF (single item) vs JEM (expert review)Asthma vs all others: sensitivity 48% vs 42%; specificity 83% vs 87%; κ 0.31 vs 0.32
Le Moual et al15Several cohorts, general population samplesVGDF (single item or modified checklist) vs JEM (based on proportion of jobs with self-reported VGDF; no expert review step)Agreement between VGDF and JEM: κ range 0.30–0.58 by cohort for single item; κ 0.71 for modified checklist (one cohort)
Blanc et al24Cohort study, subjects with and without respiratory disordersVGDF (single item) vs JEM (no expert review step)Sensitivity 64%, specificity 74% overall; COPD or asthma vs all others: κ 0.40 vs 0.36
Current studyCohort study, all subjects with asthma or rhinitisVGDF (single item) vs JEM (expert review)Sensitivity 71%, specificity 66% overall; asthma and rhinitis vs rhinitis alone: κ 0.49 vs 0.12

  • COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; JEM, job-exposure matrix; VGDF, vapours, gas, dust and fumes.