Occupational and environmental medicine · 2017
Non-occupational exposure to asbestos and risk of pleural mesothelioma: review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Marsh Gary M, Riordan Alexander S, Keeton Kara A, Benson Stacey M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an updated literature review and meta-analysis of studies of pleural malignant mesothelioma (PMM) risk among persons exposed to asbestos non-occupationally (household and neighbourhood).
METHODS: We performed a literature search for articles available in the National Center for Biotechnology Information's PubMed database published between 1967 and 2016. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled PMM risk estimates, stratifying for household or neighbourhood exposure to asbestos and/or predominant asbestos fibre type (chrysotile, amphibole or mixed).
RESULTS: Eighteen studies in 12 countries comprising 665 cases met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. We identified 13 estimates of PMM risk from neighbourhood exposures, 10 from household and one from mixed exposure, and combined the estimates using random-effects models. The overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) was 5.9 (95% CI 4.4 to 8.7). The meta-RRs for household and neighbourhood exposures were 5.4 (95% CI 2.6 to 11.2) and 6.9 (95% CI 4.2 to 11.4), respectively. We observed trends in risk in relation to fibre type for both household and neighbourhood studies. For chrysotile, mixed and amphibole fibres, respectively, meta-RRs for neighbourhood studies were 3.8 (95% CI 0.4 to 38.4), 8.4 (95% CI 4.7 to 14.9) and 21.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 84.5) and meta-RRs for household studies were 4.0 (95% CI 0.8 to 18.8), 5.3 (95% CI 1.9 to 15.0) and 21.1 (95% CI 2.8 to 156.0).
CONCLUSIONS: PMM risks from non-occupational asbestos exposure are consistent with the fibre-type potency response observed in occupational settings. By relating our findings to knowledge of exposure-response relationships in occupational settings, we can better evaluate PMM risks in communities with ambient asbestos exposures from industrial or other sources.
METHODS: We performed a literature search for articles available in the National Center for Biotechnology Information's PubMed database published between 1967 and 2016. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled PMM risk estimates, stratifying for household or neighbourhood exposure to asbestos and/or predominant asbestos fibre type (chrysotile, amphibole or mixed).
RESULTS: Eighteen studies in 12 countries comprising 665 cases met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria. We identified 13 estimates of PMM risk from neighbourhood exposures, 10 from household and one from mixed exposure, and combined the estimates using random-effects models. The overall meta-relative risk (meta-RR) was 5.9 (95% CI 4.4 to 8.7). The meta-RRs for household and neighbourhood exposures were 5.4 (95% CI 2.6 to 11.2) and 6.9 (95% CI 4.2 to 11.4), respectively. We observed trends in risk in relation to fibre type for both household and neighbourhood studies. For chrysotile, mixed and amphibole fibres, respectively, meta-RRs for neighbourhood studies were 3.8 (95% CI 0.4 to 38.4), 8.4 (95% CI 4.7 to 14.9) and 21.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 84.5) and meta-RRs for household studies were 4.0 (95% CI 0.8 to 18.8), 5.3 (95% CI 1.9 to 15.0) and 21.1 (95% CI 2.8 to 156.0).
CONCLUSIONS: PMM risks from non-occupational asbestos exposure are consistent with the fibre-type potency response observed in occupational settings. By relating our findings to knowledge of exposure-response relationships in occupational settings, we can better evaluate PMM risks in communities with ambient asbestos exposures from industrial or other sources.