ArticleCanadian respiratory journal
Direct costs of occupational asthma due to sensitization in Quebec (1988 to 2002): revisited.
Article in Canadian respiratory journal. 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.
- Asthma Among Manitoba Workers: Results from the Manitoba Occupational Disease Surveillance System.Safety and health at work · 2024Article
- Medical Monitoring for Occupational Asthma Among Toluene Diisocyanate Production Workers in the United States.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2017Article
- Review of Diagnostic Challenges in Occupational Asthma.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn a previous study, the authors assessed direct costs for occupational asthma (OA) in a random sample of eight to 10 accepted claims per year for OA between 1988 and 2002. Compensation for loss of income (CLI) was found to be significantly higher for men and for OA caused by low-molecular-weight agents. OBJECTIVES AND
methodsTo identify sociodemographic factors that modulate CLI, the dossier of each claimant in the previous study was re-examined.
resultsHigher CLI costs were directly related to the duration of CLI (over which loss of income was reimbursed) (r=0.65). Costs of CLI were higher in patients 30 years of age or older at diagnosis, married subjects and individuals who were offered early retirement or were enrolled in an active interventional rehabilitation program. Higher CLI costs in men, but not in women, were associated with the following sociodemographic factors: older age, different rehabilitation program (early retirement and active program versus no specific program) and married status. Older age was found to be significant in the multivariate analysis performed for men. The cost of CLI was higher in workers with OA caused by low-molecular-weight agents. Although proportionally fewer men and younger workers were affected with OA caused by low-molecular-weight agents, the longer duration of CLI for this category of agent could explain the higher costs.
conclusionHigher costs for CLI were associated in men (but not women) with older age, married status and type of rehabilitation program (early retirement and active rehabilitation). Higher costs of CLI for OA caused by low-molecular-weight agents were associated with a longer duration of CLI per se, and not with sociodemographic factors.
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.