Assessing the quality of evidence in studies estimating prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors: The QoE-SPEO approach applied in the systematic reviews from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related burden of disease and Injury

The effect of occupational exposure to welding fumes on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer: A supplementary analysis of regular occupational exposure and of occasional occupational exposure based on the systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are the producers of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified welding fumes as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). A previous systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates reported that there was "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" that compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of developing trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. It concluded that WHO/ILO Joint Estimates could be produced of the attributable burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. However, occupational exposure to welding fumes must be considered in greater detail, as there may be differences in risk between those with regular occupational exposure to welding fumes and those with occasional occupational exposure, the latter of which has previously been estimated to be highly prevalent. Regular and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes have not previously been considered in a systematic review. Here, we present a supplementary analysis to our previous systematic review and meta-analysis, providing parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to regular and to occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes, to inform the development of WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of this burden of disease.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of regular occupational exposure to welding fumes and of occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

DATA SOURCES

We developed and published a protocol for our previous systematic review, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and CISDOC, up until 27 May 2024. We also searched grey literature databases, internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included studies of working-age workers (≥15 years) in the formal and informal economy in any Member State of WHO and/or ILO but excluded studies of children (<15 years) and of unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of regular and/or occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently: screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria, screened full texts of potentially eligible records, and extracted data from the included studies. We combined effect estimates using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide's tools and approaches adapted to the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. We conducted subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight records from 19 studies (17 case control studies and two cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising over 2.4 million participants (unclear number of females, but N < 4388) and conducted in 17 countries in three WHO Regions (Region of the Americas, European Region, and Western Pacific Region). Across included studies, we judged risk of bias as generally probably low/low, but the risks of selection bias as probably high for several studies and of exposure assessment bias as high for one study. Our search identified no evidence on the outcome of having trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence). Compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, regular occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of developing trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 39% (RR 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.67, 15 studies, 29,785 participants, I2 23%; high quality of evidence), and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of developing trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 16% (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.27, 16 studies, 32,838 participants, I2 15%; moderate quality of evidence). Compared with no (or very rare) occupational exposure to welding fumes, regular occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 25% (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.88-1.77, 1 study, 3583 participants; low quality of evidence), and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 31% (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.07-1.59, 1 study, 4215 participants, low quality of evidence). Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO Region and sex. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses' findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for incidence of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" for both regular and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes; a positive relationship is observed between exposure and outcome where chance, bias, and confounding can be ruled out with reasonable confidence. For mortality of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as "inadequate evidence of harmfulness"; the available evidence is insufficient to assess effects of the exposure. The summary effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates to produce estimates of proportions of the working-age population with regular and occasional occupational exposure to welding fumes and the attributable burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer.

The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I2 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I2 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I2 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I2 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m3 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I2 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m3 (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.

Estimating the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window: A microsimulation modelling approach from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

OBJECTIVES

Burden of disease estimation commonly requires estimates of the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window (yeart to yeart+n). We present a microsimulation modelling approach for producing such estimates and apply it to calculate the population exposed to long working hours for one country (Italy).

METHODS

We developed a three-model approach: Model 1, a multilevel model, estimates exposure to the risk factor at the first year of the time window (yeart). Model 2, a regression model, estimates transition probabilities between exposure categories during the time window (yeart to yeart+n). Model 3, a microsimulation model, estimates the exposed population over the time window, using the Monte Carlo method. The microsimulation is carried out in three steps: (a) a representative synthetic population is initiated in the first year of the time window using prevalence estimates from Model 1, (b) the exposed population is simulated over the time window using the transition probabilities from Model 2; and (c) the population is censored for deaths during the time window.

RESULTS

We estimated the population exposed to long working hours (i.e. 41-48, 49-54 and ≥55 hours/week) over a 10-year time window (2002-11) in Italy. We populated all three models with official data from Labour Force Surveys, United Nations population estimates and World Health Organization life tables. Estimates were produced of populations exposed over the time window, disaggregated by sex and 5-year age group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our modelling approach for estimating the population exposed to a risk factor over a time window is simple, versatile, and flexible. It however requires longitudinal exposure data and Model 3 (the microsimulation model) is stochastic. The approach can improve accuracy and transparency in exposure and burden of disease estimations. To improve the approach, a logical next step is changing Model 3 to a deterministic microsimulation method, such as modelling of microflows.

The effect of occupational exposure to welding fumes on trachea, bronchus and lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are the producers of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). Welding fumes have been classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in IARC Monograph 118; this assessment found sufficient evidence from studies in humans that welding fumes are a cause of lung cancer. In this article, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to occupational exposure to welding fumes, to inform the development of WHO/ILO Joint Estimates on this burden of disease (if considered feasible).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

DATA SOURCES

We developed and published a protocol, applying the Navigation Guide as an organizing systematic review framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL and CISDOC. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA

We included working-age (≥15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any Member State of WHO and/or ILO but excluded children (<15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes, compared with occupational exposure to no (or low) welding fumes, on trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence, incidence, and mortality).

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. If studies reported odds ratios, these were converted to risk ratios (RRs). We combined all RRs using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence, and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide tools and approaches adapted to this project. Subgroup (e.g., by WHO region and sex) and sensitivity analyses (e.g., studies judged to be of "high"/"probably high" risk of bias compared with "low"/"probably low" risk of bias) were conducted.

RESULTS

Forty-one records from 40 studies (29 case control studies and 11 cohort studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising over 1,265,512 participants (≥22,761 females) in 21 countries in three WHO regions (Region of the Americas, European Region, and Western Pacific Region). The exposure and outcome were generally assessed by job title or self-report, and medical or administrative records, respectively. Across included studies, risk of bias was overall generally probably low/low, with risk judged high or probably high for several studies in the domains for misclassification bias and confounding. Our search identified no evidence on the outcome of having trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (prevalence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (incidence) by an estimated 48 % (RR 1.48, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.29-1.70, 23 studies, 57,931 participants, I² 24 %; moderate quality of evidence). Compared with no (or low) occupational exposure to welding fumes, any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer (mortality) by an estimated 27 % (RR 1.27, 95 % CI 1.04-1.56, 3 studies, 8,686 participants, I² 0 %; low quality of evidence). Our subgroup analyses found no evidence for difference by WHO region and sex. Sensitivity analyses supported the main analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, for incidence and mortality of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer, we judged the existing body of evidence for human data as "sufficient evidence of harmfulness" and "limited evidence of harmfulness", respectively. Occupational exposure to welding fumes increased the risk of acquiring and dying from trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer. Producing estimates for the burden of trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer attributable to any (or high) occupational exposure to welding fumes appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates. PROTOCOL IDENTIFIER: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106089.

Towards a framework for systematic reviews of the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors

Exposure prevalence studies (as here defined) record the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors to human health. Applying systematic review methods to the synthesis of these studies would improve the rigour and transparency of normative products produced based on this evidence (e.g., exposure prevalence estimates). However, a dedicated framework, including standard methods and tools, for systematically reviewing exposure prevalence studies has yet to be created. We describe the need for this framework and progress made towards it through a series of such systematic reviews that the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization conducted for their WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates).We explain that existing systematic review frameworks for environmental and occupational health cannot be directly applied for the generation of exposure prevalence estimates because they seek to synthesise different types of evidence (e.g., intervention or exposure effects on health) for different purposes (e.g., identify intervention effectiveness or exposure toxicity or carcinogenicity). Concepts unique to exposure prevalence studies (e.g., "expected heterogeneity": the real, non-spurious variability in exposure prevalence due to exposure changes over space and/or time) also require new assessment methods. A framework for systematic reviews of prevalence of environmental and occupational exposures requires adaptation of existing methods (e.g., a standard protocol) and development of new tools or approaches (e.g., for assessing risk of bias and certainty of a body of evidence, including exploration of expected heterogeneity).As part of the series of systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, the World Health Organization collaborating with partners has created a preliminary framework for systematic reviews of prevalence studies of exposures to occupational risk factors. This included development of protocol templates, data extraction templates, a risk of bias assessment tool, and an approach for assessing certainty of evidence in these studies. Further attention and efforts are warranted from scientific and policy communities, especially exposure scientists and policy makers, to establish a standard framework for comprehensive and transparent systematic reviews of studies estimating prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors, to improve estimates, risk assessments and guidelines.