ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2006
Occupational exposure to pfiesteria species in estuarine waters is not a risk factor for illness.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sentinel Animals in a One Health Approach to Harmful Cyanobacterial and Algal Blooms.Veterinary sciences · 2016Article
- Lack of evidence for contact sensitization by Pfiesteria extract.Environmental health perspectives · 2007Article
- Pfiesteria in estuarine waters: the question of health risks.Environmental health perspectives · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExposure to the dinoflagellate Pfiesteria has, under certain circumstances, been associated with deficits in human learning and memory. However, uncertainties remain about the health risk of chronic, low-level exposures (as seen among occupationally exposed commercial fishermen), particularly in light of studies suggesting that Pfiesteria strains are widespread in the estuarine environment in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region.
methodsWe selected an initial cohort of 152 persons, including 123 persons with regular, occupational exposure to the Chesapeake Bay ; 107 of the cohort members were followed for the full four summer "seasons" of the study. Cohort members were questioned biweekly about symptoms, and data were collected about the areas of the bay in which they worked. These latter data were matched with data on the presence or absence of Pfiesteria in each area, based on polymerase chain reaction analysis of > 3,500 water samples. Cohort members underwent neuropsychological testing at the beginning and end of each summer season.
resultsNo correlation was found between work in an area where Pfiesteria was identified and specific symptomatology or changes on neuropsychological tests.
conclusionsAlthough high-level or outbreak-associated exposure to Pfiesteria species (or specific strains within a species) may have an effect on health, routine occupational exposure to estuarine environments in which these organisms are present does not appear to pose a significant health risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.