Premium
RE: An alternate characterization of hazard in occupational epidemiology: years of life lost per years worked. Am J Ind Med 42:1–10, 2002
Author(s) -
Park Robert M.,
Bailer A. John,
Stayner Leslie T.,
Halperin William,
Gilbert Stephen J.,
Smith Randal J.,
Bena James F.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/ajim.10206
Subject(s) - stipulation , medicine , hazard , life table , argument (complex analysis) , population , actuarial science , demography , gerontology , environmental health , law , chemistry , organic chemistry , sociology , political science , business
To the Editor: We thank Dr. Morfeld for his interest and appreciate the careful and detailed effort that he has undertaken in analyzing our recent study on work‐related years of potential life lost [Park et al., 2003]. Dr. Morfeld is concerned that our approach, while "attractive in its simplicity," may suffer from several sources of bias. However, upon examination, his specific example appears to us to be inappropriate. A key element in Dr. Morfeld's argument for two of the sources of bias is a hypothetical population in which deaths resulting from an exposure are arbitrarily postulated to have been moved forward in time by 5 years. This stipulation was not derived from empirical evidence or a failure‐time model, and ignores the reference population's survival characteristics as summarized in a relevant life‐table.