ArticleSafety and health at work2014
A 4-Year Follow-up Cohort Study of the Respiratory Functions in Toner-handling Workers.
Article in Safety and health at work, 2014. 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.
- Effects of toner-handling work on respiratory function, chest X-ray findings, and biomarkers of inflammation, allergy, and oxidative stress: a 10-year prospective Japanese cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2020Article
- Unusual pneumoconiosis in two patients with heavy print toner, and paper dust exposure.American journal of industrial medicine · 2020Article
- Observational
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFocusing on the respiratory function for health effect indices, we conducted a cross-sectional study on workers who did and did not handle toner to compare the longitudinal changes.
methodsAmong 116 individuals who worked for a Japanese business equipment manufacturer and participated in the study, the analysis included 69 male workers who we were able to follow up for 4 years. We categorized the 40 workers engaged in toner-handling work as the exposed group and the 29 workers not engaged in these tasks as the referent group, and compared their respiratory function test results: peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), vital capacity (VC), predicted vital capacity (%VC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), and forced expiratory volume in 1 second as a percent of forced vital capacity (FEV1%).
resultsThe cross-sectional study of the respiratory function test results at the baseline and at the 5(th) year showed no statistically significant differences in PEFR, VC, %VC, FEV1, and FEV1% between the exposed and referent workers. Also, respiratory function time-course for 4 years was calculated and compared between the groups. No statistically significant differences were shown.
conclusionOur study does not suggest any toner exposure effects on respiratory function. However, the number of subjects was small in our study; studies of larger populations will be desired in the future.
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.