Where is the "Corruption?"

Our plain-English summary of Where is the "Corruption?", by P.A. Hessel (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2017).

The study

• Author: P.A. Hessel
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 2017;60(10):911-912
• Type of article: Comment
• Cited by: 5 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Summary of the article

This letter to the editor responded to an article by Egilman and Monárrez that called a study by Kelsh et al. an example of "corporate corruption of science." Egilman and Monárrez had re-evaluated 78 data sheets from the Australian Mesothelioma Registry that Leigh and Driscoll (2003) had classified as vehicle mechanics, 59 of them as having no other asbestos exposures. Kelsh et al. had classified at most 18 of the 59 as professional vehicle mechanics with no other known exposure. Egilman and Monárrez classified 35 as "motor/brake mechanics" with no other exposure. The author argued that the difference in approach could explain all or most of the differing results. He noted that Egilman and Monárrez had included aircraft and railway brake mechanics and had classified questionable data sheets as brake-only exposure. He argued that biasing data collection toward a positive association was unscientific, and that funding does not imply manipulation. He described two industry-funded studies he took part in. One, using National Cancer Institute data, found no increased mesothelioma risk among brake workers. The other was a meta-analysis that found a summary risk estimate below 1.0, though not significantly. He reported that, of 22 epidemiologic studies of mesothelioma and vehicle repair, 16 found relative risks below 1.0, two found non-significant risks above 1.0, one found a significantly elevated risk, and three gave no estimate. He stated that only one of these studies was industry-funded. He disclosed consulting for, and receiving research funding from, companies whose automotive products contained asbestos.

PubMed has no abstract for this study, and the article doesn't print one. We wrote this summary from the full article with the help of AI. It is not the authors' wording.

In plain English

This letter to the editor is not a research study. The author responded to a 2017 paper by Egilman and Monárrez calling an earlier analysis by Kelsh and colleagues "corporate corruption of science." Re-reviewing the same 59 Australian Mesothelioma Registry data sheets, Kelsh and colleagues counted at most 18 as professional vehicle mechanics with no other known exposure; Egilman and Monárrez counted 35. The author argued that differing classification choices, such as including aircraft and railway brake mechanics, could explain most or all of the gap without any corruption. The author described two earlier industry-funded studies involving the author. One found no increased mesothelioma risk among brake workers. The other, a meta-analysis, found a summary risk estimate below 1.0 that was not statistically significant. By the author's count, of 22 epidemiologic studies of mesothelioma and vehicle repair, excluding meta-analyses, 16 found relative risk estimates below 1.0, two non-significant estimates above 1.0, one a significantly elevated estimate, and three no estimate. Only one of those was automobile-industry funded. The author disclosed consulting for makers or users of asbestos-containing automotive products.

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 (commentary responding to another paper; no new data collected)
• Who was studied: No study population. The letter discusses re-reviews of 78 Australian Mesothelioma Registry data sheets that Leigh and Driscoll (2003) classified as vehicle mechanics, 59 of them classified as having no other asbestos exposures.
• Exposure: Work as a vehicle mechanic or brake mechanic (vehicle repair); no fiber type is specified
• Main results:
  • Of the 59 data sheets, Kelsh et al. classified at most 18 as professional vehicle mechanics with no other known exposure.
  • Of the same 59 data sheets, Egilman and Monárrez classified 35 as motor/brake mechanics with no other exposure.
  • The author stated that Egilman and Monárrez included, for example, aircraft brake mechanics and railway brake mechanics as vehicle mechanics, and argued that this difference in approach could explain all or most of the differing results.
  • The author's earlier case-control study, funded by the automobile industry, found no increased risk of mesothelioma among brake workers.
  • The author's earlier meta-analysis found a summary risk estimate below 1.0 that was not statistically significant.
  • By the author's count of 22 epidemiologic studies of mesothelioma and vehicle repair (excluding meta-analyses): 16 had relative risk estimates below 1.0, two had non-significant estimates above 1.0, one had a significantly elevated estimate, and for three no estimate could be calculated.
  • According to the author, only one of those 22 studies was funded by the automobile industry.
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that differences in classification, not corruption, explain the differing results, and that it is fatuous to call industry-funded literature corrupt while treating the opposing literature differently.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Mesothelioma, Asbestos Exposure, Meta-Analysis, Relative Risk.

Related studies

• Corruption of occupational medical literature: the asbestos example — H. Hardy, D. Egilman (1991)
• Corporate corruption of science-Another asbestos example — D. Egilman, R. Monárrez (2017)
• Corporate corruption of medical literature: asbestos studies concealed by W.R. Grace & Co — D. Egilman, W. Wallace, et al. (1998)
• Corruption of the medical literature: a second visit — D.S. Egilman, C.M. Hom (1998)
• Epidemiology, etiology, and fertility drugs in ovarian epithelial carcinoma: where are we today? — Z. Shoham (1994)
• Multimodal management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: where are we today? — P.E. Van Schil, I. Opitz, et al. (2014)

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