Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP) Research Plan

Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis (CWP) Research PlanMOHAMMAD FAISALCollection of DataA.1. What were the objectives of the battleground? What was the association of intimacy?The objectives of the study were to examine the association of the prevalence of coal workers pneumoconiosis (CWP) in the USA and contrasting change factors such as level of dust exposure, mine size, low phone line mining and other factors. as well the regional differences in CWP were comp atomic number 18d. The association of interest is between CWP and various contributing factors and also between different MSHA district regions. It was a cross-sectional study.A.2. What was the primary outcome (usu wholey a disease, health condition, or other pendent variable) of interest? Briefly explain how the outcome was measured.The primary outcomes were observed and predicted prevalence in CWP prevalence in miners who participated in this study. Attfield and Morring Exposure response model was utilized to measure the pre dicted prevalence in CWP and the Chi-square test was use to compare the predicted and observed prevalences in CWP in miners. Radiographs were used to determine the presence of lung parenchymal abnormalities that are consistent with pneumoconiosis obtained from CWHSP.A.3. What was the primary exposure (actual exposure such as chemical, other risk factor, or other fencesitter variable) of interest? Briefly explain how exposure was measured.The primary exposures were level of dust exposure intentness, mine size, tenure, seam height. These data were collected from CWHSP, approved by the NIOSH Human Subjects Review Board. Coal mine dust assiduity and seam height data were obtained from MSIS. A.4. What type of study was conducted (study design)? This was a cross sectional study, which was done with a large number of participants from survey data.A.5. Describe the process of subject selection. Define the witnesser population for this study, if possible.The study participants were 12,4 08 underground coal miners from the MSHA districts. Participation in this CWHSP study were voluntary and study participants were 16 years and older. referable to small number of participants and different type of coal type (anthracite rather than bituminous), MSHA district 1 participants were excluded. The source population was all the underground coal miners in MSHA districts in USA. A.6. Selection bias What are possible sources in this study? Examples in a case- tame study, how were the study subjects included? In a cohort study, is in that respect loss to follow-up? The study participants (underground coal miners) in this CWHSP study were stratified by MSHAdistricts. Since stratified analyses are important in this study, the probability of being selected in a specific stratum might be different from another stratum and thus a selection bias might have happened. A.7. study bias What are some of the sources of information (measurement) error, for either the exposure or outcome m easurement? argon these differential with respect to the exposure or outcome of interest?For exposure measurement, the investigators analyzed the self communicate tenure in mining to derive the cumulative exposures. Also current exposures were examined for CWP which may not ready temporal relationship due to lack of allowance for lag time. A.8. Confounding Did the authors consider potential confounders in the design of the study?The authors considered the following confounders miner age and coal rank because the effect of respirable coal mine dust can be modified by the rank of the coal. B. Analysis of DataB.1. What methods were used to control confounding? Were these sufficient (as far as you can tell)?As mentioned in the report the investigators incorporated all of the above mentioned covariates in their exposure-response statistical models to control for confounding. No detailed description is found about despotic the confounders. B.2. What measure of association (e.g. odds ra tio, risk ratio, rate difference, etc.) was describe in the study? Was this appropriate?The authors inform the prevalence of the CWP and prevalence ratio between different MSHA district regions in this study. Since this is a survey found study, prevalence ratio is appropriate. B.3. How was the uncertainty of the measure of association (effect of random error or statistical significance) reported in this study? Are the conclusions of the study consistent with the uncertainty of the measure of association?The authors did not report 95% confidence intervals to report the uncertainty of the measure. However they reported the range of measured dust concentration level, worked hours per miners and tenure median. The prevalence ratio was statistically significant (p