ArticleCanadian respiratory journal
A comparison of work-exacerbated asthma cases from clinical and epidemiological settings.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Work-related asthma.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2021Review
- Update on the Management of Occupational Asthma and Work-Exacerbated Asthma.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2019Review
- An official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report: presentations and discussion of the fifth Jack Pepys Workshop on Asthma in the Workplace. Comparisons between asthma in the workplace and non-work-related asthma.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2015Article
- Importance of definitions and population selection in work-related asthma.Canadian respiratory journalArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical and epidemiological studies commonly use different case definitions in different settings when investigating work-exacerbated asthma (WEA). These differences are likely to impact characteristics of the resulting WEA cases.
objectivesTo investigate this issue by comparing two groups of WEA cases, one identified using an intensive clinical evaluation and another that fulfilled epidemiological criteria.
methodsA total of 53 clinical WEA cases had been referred for suspected work-related asthma to two tertiary clinics in Canada, where patients completed tests that confirmed asthma and ruled out asthma caused by work. Forty-seven epidemiological WEA cases were employed asthma patients treated at a health maintenance organization in the United States who completed a questionnaire and spirometry, and fulfilled criteria for WEA based on self-reported, work-related worsening of asthma and relevant workplace exposures as judged by an expert panel.
resultsUsing different case criteria in different settings resulted in case groups that had a mix of similarities and differences. The clinical WEA cases were more likely to have visited a doctor's office ≥3 times for asthma in the past year (75% versus 11%; P<0.0001), but did not seek more asthma-related emergency or in-patient care, or have lower spirometry values. The two groups differed substantially according to the industries and occupations where the cases worked.
conclusionsFindings from both types of studies should be considered when measuring the contribution of work to asthma exacerbations, identifying putative agents, and selecting industries and occupations in which to implement screening and surveillance programs.
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.