Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11995631›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Medical Association2002

Environmental factors influencing public health and medicine: policy implications.

Rueben Warren, Bailus Walker, Vincent R Nathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Medical Association, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Rueben WarrenUrban Affairs, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Bailus Walker
Vincent R Nathan

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental health threats are increasing throughout the United States, particularly in low-income populations and in communities of color. Environmental science researchers are investigating plausible associations between the environment and human health. As a result, the role and responsibility of the primary care physicians and other health care providers are changing. This paper highlights selected lines of evidence suggesting that clinicians should now consider interactions between humans and their environment as central to providing effective primary care. Subject areas include: exposure to environmental agents, reproductive toxicity, pulmonary disease, neurobehavioral toxicity, endocrine disruptors, mechanisms of environmental disease, and cultural competence. Concerns about these and other environmentally related issues influence the manner in which primary care is practiced now, and will be practiced in the future. Biomedical technology and community awareness demand that physicians pay more attention to advances in environmental medicine. Ironically, one of the least taught subjects in medical school is environmental medicine. To effectively respond to growing concerns about the role of the environment in human health, clinicians, researchers, educators, public policy officials, and the general public must join together to reduce the risk of environmental health threats and improve quality of life.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthPublic PolicyEnvironmental ExposureHumansPublic HealthUnited States

Identifiers

PMID11995631
PMCPMC2594229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.