PurposeIt is questioned whether the exposure–response relation for the onset of vibration-induced white finger (VWF) in ISO 5349-1:2001 needs to be revised based on the epidemiologic studies identified by Nilsson et al. (PLoS One 10.1371/journal.pone.0180795, 2017), and whether the relation they derive improves the prediction of VWF in vibration-exposed populations.MethodsA pooled analysis has been performed using epidemiologic studies that complied with selection rules and reported a VWF prevalence of 10% or more, and exposure constructed according to the provisions of ISO 5349-1:2001. The lifetime exposures at 10% prevalence were calculated for various data sets using linear interpolation. They were then compared to both the model from the standard and that developed by Nilsson et al.ResultsRegression analyses reveal excluding extrapolation to adjust group prevalences to 10% produce models with 95-percentile confidence intervals that include the ISO exposure–response relation but not that in Nilsson et al. (2017). Different curve fits are obtained for studies involving daily exposure to single or multiple power tools and machines. Studies with similar exposure magnitudes and lifetime exposure durations but markedly different prevalences are observed to cluster.ConclusionsA range of exposures andA(8)-values is predicted within which the onset of VWF is most likely to occur. The exposure–response relation in ISO 5349-1:2001, but not that proposed by Nilsson et al., falls within this range and provides a conservative estimate for the development of VWF. In addition, the analyses suggest that the method for evaluating vibration exposure contained in ISO 5349-1:2001 needs revision.