Corporate corruption of science-Another asbestos example

Our plain-English summary of Corporate corruption of science-Another asbestos example, by D. Egilman, R. Monárrez (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2017).

The study

• Authors: D. Egilman, R. Monárrez
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2017;60(2):152-162
• Cited by: 9 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Background: Kelsh et al. [2007]: Occup Med (Lond) 57:581-589 published a paper reanalyzing one of the few data sources publicly available on mesothelioma amongst brake workers, the Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Registry (AMSR). This reanalysis was commissioned by lawyers representing the automobile manufacturing companies and did not align with an independent analysis published by Leigh and Driscoll [2003]: Occup Environ Health 9:206-217.

Methods: We sought to reevaluate the AMSR data ourselves to understand how the company-sponsored research categorized the data.

Results: In our re-analysis of the 78 brake-related folios in the AMSR, we determined that 57 were employed brake mechanics, 35 were employed brake mechanics with no other asbestos exposure besides brake work or repair, and 41 of these cases had no other asbestos exposure besides brake work or repair. Our classifications differed significantly from Kelsh et al.

Conclusions: We discuss how Kelsh et al. methodically reduced the relevant cases by following overly stringent criteria for inclusion. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:152-162, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In plain English

This re-analysis and commentary re-examined the 78 Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Registry case files ("folios") that Australian authorities had found with the search term "brake". Copies of these files had been produced in litigation. The authors sought to explain why a 2007 analysis by Kelsh et al., which they say was commissioned by lawyers for automobile manufacturers, disagreed with earlier work by Leigh and Driscoll. The authors classified 57 of the 78 cases as employed brake mechanics: 35 with no other documented asbestos exposure, 21 with other exposure, and one unclear. Six more were not brake mechanics but had no exposure besides brake work, including two wives of brake mechanics. Another 15 had additional exposures, such as brake manufacture. In all, 41 had no asbestos exposure other than brake work or repair. By the authors' account, Kelsh et al. counted 18 definite motor mechanics with no other asbestos exposures mentioned, questioned whether 15 of them had complete work histories, and accepted only three cases whose only exposure was asbestos brakes. The authors concluded that Kelsh et al.'s rationale was designed to exclude as many cases as possible.

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: Re-analysis and commentary: the authors reclassified registry case files and compared their classifications with two earlier published analyses (Kelsh et al. 2007; Leigh and Driscoll 2003)
• Who was studied: The 78 hard-copy case files (folios) of mesothelioma cases in the Australian Mesothelioma Surveillance Registry that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission identified with the search term "brake". The Commission's report covered data collected from 1986 to 2001, and the files were obtained through litigation.
• Exposure: Asbestos exposure from making or repairing brake linings (brake work or repair). No fiber type is specified.
• Main results:
  • Of the 78 folios, the authors classified 57 as employed brake mechanics.
  • Among the brake mechanics, 35 had no other documented asbestos exposure and 21 had other asbestos exposure.
  • Six people were not brake mechanics but had no asbestos exposure besides brake work. Fifteen non-brake mechanics had other exposures. For one motor mechanic it was unclear whether there was other exposure.
  • The six non-mechanics with only brake-related exposure included two wives of brake mechanics (folios 71 and 73).
  • In total, 41 of the 78 cases had no asbestos exposure besides brake work or repair (the 35 brake mechanics plus the 6 non-brake mechanics, per Table I).
  • The authors wrote that their classifications differed significantly from those of Kelsh et al. No statistical test is described.
  • For comparison, the article reports that Kelsh et al. (the study being critiqued, not this one) counted 18 definite motor mechanics with no other asbestos exposures mentioned.
  • The article reports that Kelsh et al. questioned whether 15 of those 18 cases had complete occupational histories.
  • The article also reports that Kelsh et al. finally accepted only three of the 78 folios as cases whose only exposure was from asbestos-containing brakes.
  • The authors reported that Kelsh et al.'s reliance on industrial classification codes excluded non-occupational, informal, amateur and part-time brake workers, as well as secondary exposure cases.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that Kelsh et al.'s rationale was designed at each step to exclude as many cases as possible rather than to consider whether brake work increases mesothelioma risk.

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Mesothelioma.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Asbestos Exposure.

Related studies

• Response to Hessel — D. Egilman (2017)
• Corporate corruption of medical literature: asbestos studies concealed by W.R. Grace & Co — D. Egilman, W. Wallace, et al. (1998)
• Dust diseases and the legacy of corporate manipulation of science and law — D. Egilman, T. Bird, et al. (2014)
• Science or public relations? The inside story of the Asbestosis Research Council, 1957-1990 — G. Tweedale (2000)
• Corruption of occupational medical literature: the asbestos example — H. Hardy, D. Egilman (1991)
• MetLife and its corporate allies: dust diseases and the manipulation of science — D.S. Egilman, T. Bird, et al. (2013)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.