% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Deltour:143728,
author = {I. Deltour and A. Massardier-Pilonchery and B.
Schlehofer$^*$ and K. Schlaefer$^*$ and M. Hours and J.
Schüz},
title = {{V}alidation of self-reported occupational noise exposure
in participants of a {F}rench case-control study on acoustic
neuroma.},
journal = {International archives of occupational and environmental
health},
volume = {92},
number = {7},
issn = {1432-1246},
address = {Heidelberg},
publisher = {Springer},
reportid = {DKFZ-2019-01298},
pages = {991-1001},
year = {2019},
abstract = {To validate self-reported occupational loud noise exposure
against expert evaluation of noise levels in a French
case-control study on acoustic neuroma and to estimate the
impact of exposure misclassification on risk
estimation.Noise levels were evaluated in 1006 jobs held by
111 cases and 217 population controls by an expert.
Case-control differences in self-reporting were analyzed
with logistic models. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and
negative predictive values, and observed agreement of the
self-reports were computed relative to the expert
evaluation. They were used to calibrate the odds ratio (OR)
between lifetime ever occupational loud noise exposure and
the risk of acoustic neuroma, without adjustment for
measurement error of the expert assessments.Cases reported
noise levels in individual jobs closer to the expert
assessment than controls, but the case-control difference
was small for lifetime exposures. For expert-rated exposure
of 80 dB(A), reporting of individual jobs by cases was more
sensitive $(54\%$ in cases, $37\%$ in controls), whereas
specificity $(91\%$ in cases, $93\%$ in controls) and
observed agreement $(82\%$ in cases, $81\%$ in controls)
were similar. When lifetime exposure was considered,
sensitivity increased $(76\%$ in cases, $65\%$ in controls),
while cases specificity decreased $(84\%).$ When these
values were used to calibrate self-reports for exposure
misclassification compared to expert evaluation at
80 dB(A), the crude OR of 1.7 was reduced to 1.3.Despite
the relatively accurate reporting of loud noise, the impact
of the calibration on the OR was non-negligible.},
cin = {C030},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C030-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:31028471},
doi = {10.1007/s00420-019-01427-2},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/143728},
}