ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental medicine2012
Poultry processing work and respiratory health of Latino men and women in North Carolina.
Article in Journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 2012. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Respiratory health disorders associated with occupational exposure to bioaerosols among workers in poultry breeding farms.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020Article
- Adolescent lung function associated with incense burning and other environmental exposures at home.Indoor air · 2017Article
- Airway obstruction among Latino poultry processing workers in North Carolina.Archives of environmental & occupational health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate associations between poultry processing work and respiratory health among working Latino men and women in North Carolina.
methodsBetween May 2009 and November 2010, 402 poultry processing workers and 339 workers in a comparison population completed interviewer-administered questionnaires. Of these participants, 279 poultry processing workers and 222 workers in the comparison population also completed spirometry testing to provide measurements of forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity.
resultsNine percent of poultry processing workers and 10% of workers in the comparison population reported current asthma. Relative to the comparison population, adjusted mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second and forced vital capacity were lower in the poultry processing population, particularly among men who reported sanitation job activities.
conclusionsDespite the low prevalence of respiratory symptoms reported, poultry processing work may affect lung function.
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.