Comment on "A systematic review of the association between pleural plaques and changes in lung function" by Kopylev et al (2014)

Our plain-English summary of Comment on "A systematic review of the association between pleural plaques and changes in lung function" by Kopylev et al (2014), by J.E. Goodman, L.E. Kerper, K. Zu, et al (Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2015).

The study

• Authors: J.E. Goodman, L.E. Kerper, K. Zu, H.N. Lynch, G. Tao
• Journal: Occupational and Environmental Medicine
• Published: 2015;72(9):684-5
• Type of article: Letter, Comment
• Cited by: 2 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

In plain English

This was a letter to the editor, not a new study. The authors commented on a meta-analysis by Kopylev and colleagues of lung function decrements associated with pleural plaques, and argued that the analysis was inappropriate. They said it did not include a formal risk-of-bias analysis. They said it filled in missing data with assumed values that may have biased results, and that it excluded null studies that did not provide measurements. They also said most of its data were unadjusted for past asbestos exposure, smoking and body mass index. They noted that a longitudinal study cited by Kopylev and colleagues had no comparison population. They described the group mean lung function decrements as small (2–4%) and within normal intraindividual variation. The authors pointed to their own separately published systematic review, which they said included 20 studies Kopylev and colleagues did not cite. The authors concluded that the statistically significant meta-risk estimates were likely a result of the primary studies' methodological limitations rather than an indication of causality. The letter states it was funded by W R Grace & Co, which manufactured asbestos-containing fireproofing and acoustical plasters from 1963 to 1973.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: letter to the editor (correspondence) commenting on another group's meta-analysis; it presents no new data
• Who was studied: no population was studied; the letter critiques the meta-analysis by Kopylev et al of lung function and pleural plaques
• Exposure: pleural plaques (asbestos-related) and their association with lung function
• Main results:
  • The authors argued that Kopylev et al did not conduct a formal risk-of-bias analysis
  • The authors argued that, for missing data, Kopylev et al used assumed values that may have biased results
  • The authors argued that Kopylev et al excluded null studies that did not provide measurements
  • The authors argued that most data in the meta-analysis were unadjusted for confounding by past asbestos exposure, smoking and body mass index, and that several studies reported substantial differences in exposures and/or smoking between groups
  • The authors argued that a longitudinal study cited by Kopylev et al had no comparison population, so the cause of lung function loss could not be determined
  • The authors stated that group mean lung function decrements were small (2–4%) and within normal intraindividual variation
  • The authors stated that their own separately published systematic review included 20 studies not cited by Kopylev et al
  • The authors stated that, in their own review, the weight of evidence indicated pleural plaques do not impact lung function, and that observed associations are likely due to undetected asbestos-related disease
  • Disclosure stated in the letter: it was written with financial support from W R Grace & Co, which manufactured asbestos-containing fireproofing and acoustical plasters from 1963 to 1973
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the statistically significant meta-risk estimates reported by Kopylev et al are likely a result of the primary studies' methodological limitations rather than an indication of causality

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Pleural plaques and thickening.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Systematic Review, Pleural Plaques.

Related studies

• A systematic review of the association between pleural plaques and changes in lung function — L. Kopylev, K.Y. Christensen, et al. (2015)
• Authors' response: A systematic review of the association between pleural plaques and changes in lung function — L. Kopylev, K.Y. Christensen, et al. (2015)
• Systematic review of pleural plaques and lung function — L.E. Kerper, H.N. Lynch, et al. (2015)
• Risk and significance of chest radiograph and pulmonary function abnormalities in an elderly cohort of former nuclear weapons workers — M.A. Mikulski, P.G. Hartley, et al. (2011)
• Pleural plaques and lung function in the Marysville worker cohort: a re-analysis — K. Zu, G. Tao, et al. (2016)
• Comment on "pleural plaques and lung function in the Marysville worker cohort: a re-analysis" by Zu et al. (2016) — J.E. Lockey, K. Dunning, et al. (2017)

Browse more research in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, or return to medical research.