Note: The example was taken from the article: Cammarano G, Crosignani P, Berrino F, Berra G. Cancer mortality among workers in a thermoelectric power plant. Scand J Work Environ Health 1984; 10:259–261 and from the article: Cammarano G, Crosignani P, Berrino F, Berra G. Additional follow-up of cancer mortality among workers in a thermoelectric power plant. Scand J Work Environ Health 1986; 12:631–632. The number of expected cases was changed from 2.83 to 2.50 for the sake of simplicity.
Confounders and confusion: Dealing with cancer cases of occupational origin†
Article first published online: 21 APR 2010
Copyright © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine
Volume 53, Issue 10, pages 1002–1005, October 2010
How to Cite
Crosignani, P., Amendola, P., Scaburri, A., Chiappino, G. and Marinaccio, A. (2010), Confounders and confusion: Dealing with cancer cases of occupational origin. Am. J. Ind. Med., 53: 1002–1005. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20847
- Issue published online: 16 SEP 2010
- Article first published online: 21 APR 2010
- Manuscript Accepted: 2 MAR 2010
- attributable risk;
- occupational cancer;
The recognition of occupational cancers is often hampered by confusion between the individual determinants of the disease and effects at the group level.
Here we propose an approach, based on the evaluation of the attributable risk at the group level, that provides quantitative estimates of the roles of multiple causes in individuals affected of cancer within a population exposed to occupational risk.
The estimate of individual probability can be easily obtained computing the attributable risk. This can be often achieved by using the existing information available in the literature.
Dismissing the occupation as a cause of a cancer in an exposed subject on the sole basis of potential confounding is erroneous and should be withdrawn from medical practice. Am. J. Ind. Med. 53:1002–1005, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.