RE: An alternate characterization of hazard in occupational epidemiology: Years of life lost per years worked. Am J Ind Med 42:1–10, 2002
Abstract To the Editor: Park et al. [2002] proposed an alternate characterization of hazard in occupational epidemiology by estimating the excess years of life lost. Roughly speaking, they used an approach based on estimated numbers of excess cases among the exposed multiplied by the potential life...
| Published in: | American Journal of Industrial Medicine |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2003
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10205 https://api.wiley.com/onlinelibrary/tdm/v1/articles/10.1002%2Fajim.10205 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajim.10205 |
| Summary: | Abstract To the Editor: Park et al. [2002] proposed an alternate characterization of hazard in occupational epidemiology by estimating the excess years of life lost. Roughly speaking, they used an approach based on estimated numbers of excess cases among the exposed multiplied by the potential life expectancy of these cases at their age of death. Although I agree with Park et al. that occupational epidemiology should better report failure time statistics as effect measures rather than risk statistics alone [cmp. Greenland and Robins, 1988], I have to point out, with apologies, that the approach chosen by Park et al. [2002] appears to be potentially biased. A simple example based on counterfactual thinking [Maldonado and Greenland, 2002] may help to demonstrate the problems involved. |
|---|