Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups

We thank Dr Rahman Shiri (1) for his careful reading of our systematic review and meta-analysis on suicide among agricultural, forestry, and fishery workers (2). Our paper had the objective of providing a pooled effect size of suicide for this occupational group. Suicide is a crucial issue in public and occupational health. Suicide has a multifactorial etiology and recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have pointed out the role of occupational exposures, mainly psychosocial work stressors, as risk factors for suicide (3, 4). Suicide is a very rare event in the general population and still more seldom in the working population. Indeed, unemployed and economically inactive people have a higher risk of suicide compared to employed people (5, 6). However, the total number of suicides is greater in the employed population than among the economically inactive or unemployed (6). Shiri's letter (1) questioned several aspects of our review and meta-analysis. One comment related to the single reference database used in our review and a suggestion that our review could not be considered to be systematic. The review was based on Medline because our main interest was in quantitative epidemiologic studies. This is the largest database for biomedical literature and we would argue the most pertinent. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of the most recent papers and literature reviews, and Shiri did not report any paper that was missing. No review, whether searching one or more databases, can expect to be totally exhaustive. There may always be missing studies, especially if we consider grey literature. Thus we assert that our review was systematic, while acknowledging that it may not be perfectly comprehensive. Shiri suggested an absence of quality assessment of the studies included in our meta-analysis. First, quality was considered in the context of our comments in the discussion section. Second, as suggested by Rothman et al (7), quality assessment was replaced by regression analyses of the effect of each quality item (study characteristics, ie, study design, effect measure, reference group, and adjustment). Third, because most studies included in this review were based on objective data (census, administrative, or register data), they were free of many of the sources of bias that exist in studies where information on exposure and outcome must be collected from participants. Consequently, many of the items related to quality were not pertinent, such as re