Chest articles refuting the Ohar et al conclusions

What were the editors thinking? Chest editors familiar with asbestos publications in their own journal should have realized that the Ohar et al conclusions were implausible, that they were at variance with other articles previously published in Chest. Here are the 6 Chest articles referenced in my original letter to the editor. (The editorial by Banks et al is in response to the Weiss article on asbestosis and lung cancer; it highlights the controversy in this diagnosis, something Ohar et al ignore in their article.) The 7th article in this list (Cugell & Kamp) was published a month after the Ohar et al article (but submitted long before); it contains specific information disproving the Ohar conclusions about asbestos pleural disase.

There are of course articles in other journals that refute Ohar et al, plus publications in legal journals. (See my original letter; link is on the Home Page).

Dick JA, Morgan WKC, Muir DFC, et al. The significance of irregular opacities on the chest roentgenogram. Chest 1992;102:251-260.

Meyer JD, Islam S, Ducatman AM, et al. Prevalence of small lung opacities in populations unexposed to dusts. A literature analysis. Chest 1997;111: 404-10.

Weiss W. Asbestosis: A Marker for the Increased Risk of Lung Cancer Among Workers Exposed to Asbestos. Chest, February 1999;115(2):536-549.

Banks DE, et al. Asbestos Exposure, Asbestosis, and Lung Cancer (Editorial). Chest, February 1999; 115(2):320.

Ross RM. The clinical diagnosis of asbestosis in this century requires more than a chest radiograph. Chest 2003;124:1120-28.

Lawson CC, LeMasters MK, LeMasters GK, et al. Reliability and validity of chest radiograph surveillance programs. Chest 2001;120:64-68.

Cugell DW and Kamp DW. Asbestos and the Pleura. Chest 2004;125:1103-1117.

Figure 3 in this article, plus related discussion, contradict the sweeping conclusions by Ohar, et al regarding asbestos pleural abnormalities.

Return to Home Page