SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015
Determinants of exposure to fragranced product chemical mixtures in a sample of twins.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fragranced product chemical mixtures may be relevant for environmental health, but little is known about exposure. We analyzed results from an olfactory challenge with the synthetic musk fragrance 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl-cyclopento-γ-2-benzopyran (HHCB), and a questionnaire about attitudes toward chemical safety and use of fragranced products, in a sample of 140 white and 17 black twin pairs attending a festival in Ohio. Data for each product were analyzed using robust ordered logistic regressions with random intercepts for "twin pair" and "sharing address with twin", and fixed effects for sex, age, education, and "ever being bothered by fragrances". Due to the small number of black participants, models were restricted to white participants except when examining racial differences. Overall patterns of association were summarized across product-types through random-effects meta-analysis. Principal components analysis was used to summarize clustering of product use. The dominant axis of variability in fragranced product use was "more vs. less", followed by a distinction between household cleaning products and personal care products. Overall, males used fragranced products less frequently than females (adjusted proportionate odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.33, 0.93). This disparity was driven by personal care products (0.42, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.96), rather than household cleaning products (0.79, 95% CI: 0.49, 1.25) and was particularly evident for body lotion (0.12, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.27). Overall usage differed by age (0.64, 95% CI: 0.43, 0.95) but only hand soap and shampoo products differed significantly. "Ever being bothered by fragrance" had no overall association (0.92, 95% CI: 0.65, 1.30) but was associated with laundry detergent use (0.46, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.93). Similarly, black vs. white differences on average were not significant (1.34, 95% CI: 0.55, 3.28) but there were apparent differences in use of shampoo (0.01, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.69), body lotion (4.67, 95% CI: 1.18, 18.47), and perfume (6.22, 95% CI:1.08, 35.89). There was no overall association with thinking about product risks (0.90, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.02), nor with inability to smell HHCB (0.84, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.12). Exposure to fragranced products may differ demographically. The relevance for health disparities should be studied.
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.