ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2010
The German experience 10 years after the latex allergy epidemic: need for further preventive measures in healthcare employees with latex allergy.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2010. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- S2k-Guideline hand antisepsis and hand hygiene.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2024Article
- Occupational Latex Allergy: the Current State of Affairs.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2017Review
- Ten years incidence of natural rubber latex sensitization and symptoms in a prospective cohort of health care workers using non-powdered latex gloves 2000-2009.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPowdered latex gloves or latex gloves with high allergen content are forbidden in Germany since 1998. It was the aim of this study to test the hypothesis that nationwide preventive measures enable health care workers with latex allergy to work without health risks about 10 years afterwards.
methodsNinety-one health care workers who had been reported to the accident insurance between 1996 and 2004 for occupational latex allergy were examined in 2007. The survey included a questionnaire, a physical examination, spirometry, methacholine testing, skin prick testing and serum IgE measurements to latex and environmental allergens.
resultsRecent work-related possibly allergic symptoms were reported by 32 subjects (35%), among them 18 subjects (20%) with symptoms of the eyes, nose or airways. Current sensitization to latex was detected in 61 subjects (67%), and 60 subjects (66%) were atopic. Eleven subjects (12%) showed mild airway obstruction, and 27 subjects (30%) were considered hyperresponsive to methacholine. Whereas overall recent symptoms of the eyes, nose or airways were associated with current latex sensitization (OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.3-16.2), this was not the case for objective outcome parameters (spirometry, bronchial hyperresponsiveness).
conclusionsAlthough most subjects had only mild disease, ongoing work-related symptoms of the eyes, nose or airways in a substantial number of subjects with latex allergy suggest the need for further secondary preventive measures in German healthcare.
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.