↓ Skip to main content

Incident CTS in a large pooled cohort study: associations obtained by a Job Exposure Matrix versus associations obtained from observed exposures

Overview of attention for article published in Occupational and environmental medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Incident CTS in a large pooled cohort study: associations obtained by a Job Exposure Matrix versus associations obtained from observed exposures
Published in
Occupational and environmental medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1136/oemed-2017-104744
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

There is growing use of a job exposure matrix (JEM) to provide exposure estimates in studies of work-related musculoskeletal disorders; few studies have examined the validity of such estimates, nor did compare associations obtained with a JEM with those obtained using other exposures. This study estimated upper extremity exposures using a JEM derived from a publicly available data set (Occupational Network, O*NET), and compared exposure-disease associations for incident carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) with those obtained using observed physical exposure measures in a large prospective study. 2393 workers from several industries were followed for up to 2.8 years (5.5 person-years). Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes were assigned to the job at enrolment. SOC codes linked to physical exposures for forceful hand exertion and repetitive activities were extracted from O*NET. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to describe exposure-disease associations for incident CTS for individually observed physical exposures and JEM exposures from O*NET. Both exposure methods found associations between incident CTS and exposures of force and repetition, with evidence of dose-response. Observed associations were similar across the two methods, with somewhat wider CIs for HRs calculated using the JEM method. Exposures estimated using a JEM provided similar exposure-disease associations for CTS when compared with associations obtained using the 'gold standard' method of individual observation. While JEMs have a number of limitations, in some studies they can provide useful exposure estimates in the absence of individual-level observed exposures.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Other 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 18%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2022.
All research outputs
#12,440,152
of 34,560,275 outputs
Outputs from Occupational and environmental medicine
#2,377
of 3,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,410
of 373,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Occupational and environmental medicine
#44
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,560,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,126 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.