SynthesisInhalation toxicology2015
Systematic review of pleural plaques and lung function.
Synthesis in Inhalation toxicology, 2015. 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.
- Causal assessment in evidence synthesis: A methodological review of reviews.Research synthesis methods · 2022Review
- Rounded atelectasis after exposure to refractory ceramic fibres (RCF).Particle and fibre toxicology · 2021Article
- Authors' response: A systematic review of the association between pleural plaques and changes in lung function.Occupational and environmental medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextUS EPA proposed a Reference Concentration for Libby amphibole asbestos based on the premise that pleural plaques are adverse and cause lung function deficits.
objectiveWe conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether there is an association between pleural plaques and lung function and ascertain whether results were dependent on the method used to identify plaques.
methodsUsing the PubMed database, we identified studies that evaluated pleural plaques and lung function. We assessed each study for quality, then integrated evidence and assessed associations based on the Bradford Hill guidelines. We also compared the results of HRCT studies to those of X-ray studies.
resultsWe identified 16 HRCT and 36 X-ray studies. We rated six HRCT and 16 X-ray studies as higher quality based on a risk-of-bias analysis. Half of the higher quality studies reported small but statistically significant mean lung function decrements associated with plaques. None of the differences were clinically significant. Many studies had limitations, such as inappropriate controls and/or insufficient adjustment for confounders. There was little consistency in the direction of effect for the most commonly reported measurements. X-ray results were more variable than HRCT results. Pleural plaques were not associated with changes in lung function over time in longitudinal studies.
conclusionThe weight of evidence indicates that pleural plaques do not impact lung function. Observed associations are most likely due to unidentified abnormalities or other 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.