Table 2.
Study design | Cross-sectional | Cohort (prospective) | Cohort (retrospective) | Case-control | ||||
N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
Number of articles | 430 | 33.8 | 417 | 32.8 | 19 | 1.5 | 375 | 29.5 |
Articles applying>1 EAM | 35 | 8.1 | 85 | 20.4 | 2 | 10.5 | 67 | 17.9 |
Articles not reporting EAM | 6 | 1.4 | 3 | 0.7 | – | – | 1 | 0.3 |
Number of EAM occurrences in studies | 466 | 31.4 | 505 | 34.1 | 20 | 1.3 | 447 | 30.1 |
EAM: | ||||||||
Indirect EAM | 349 | 74.9 | 385 | 76.2 | 19 | 95 | 430 | 96.2 |
Direct EAM | 111 | 23.8 | 117 | 23.2 | 1 | 5 | 16 | 3.6 |
EAM not reported | 6 | 1.3 | 3 | 0.6 | – | – | 1 | 0.2 |
Indirect EAM: | ||||||||
Job title | 86 | 18.5 | 60 | 11.9 | 8 | 40 | 27 | 6 |
Expert case-by-case | 10 | 2.1 | 20 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 50 | 11.2 |
Self-reported exposure: self-administered or interview administered questionnaire |
209 | 44.8 | 146 | 28.9 | 3 | 15 | 212 | 47.4 |
Self-reported job history: self-administered or interview administered questionnaire |
14 | 3 | 11 | 2.2 | – | – | 76 | 17 |
Registers | 8 | 1.7 | 57 | 11.3 | 5 | 25 | 14 | 3.1 |
JEM | 3 | 0.6 | 18 | 3.6 | 2 | 10 | 45 | 10.1 |
CEM | – | – | 2 | 0.4 | – | – | 1 | 0.2 |
TEM | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 0.2 |
Algorithm/model | 12 | 2.5 | 58 | 11.5 | – | – | 4 | 0.9 |
Index | – | – | 6 | 1.2 | – | – | – | – |
Score | – | – | 1 | 0.2 | – | – | 2 | 0.3 |
Metric | 1 | 0.2 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Environmental monitoring | 6 | 1.3 | 4 | 0.8 | – | – | ||
GIS | – | – | 2 | 0.4 | – | – | – | – |
Direct EAM: | ||||||||
Biomonitoring: | ||||||||
Blood | 80 | 17.2 | 77 | 15.2 | 1 | 5 | 13 | 2.9 |
Urine | 29 | 6.2 | 35 | 6.9 | – | – | 3 | 0.7 |
Dermal | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Hair | – | – | 1 | 0.2 | – | – | – | – |
Adipose tissue | – | – | 3 | 0.6 | – | – | – | – |
Personal air sampling | 2 | 0.4 | 1 | 0.2 | – | – | – | – |
CEM, crop exposure matrices; GIS, geographical information systems; JEM, job exposure matrices; TEM, task exposure matrices.