ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2016
Trends and variability in blood lead concentrations among US adults aged 20-64 years and senior citizens aged ≥65 years.
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2016. 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.
- A survey study of factors influencing elevated blood lead levels in donors from Qingdao, China.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2023Article
- Metabolomic signatures of lead exposure in the VA Normative Aging Study.Environmental research · 2020Article
- Co-exposures to toxic metals cadmium, lead, and mercury and their impact on unhealthy kidney function.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
- Case-control investigation of occupational lead exposure and kidney cancer.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for the period 2003-2012, the objective of this study was to evaluate trends in blood lead levels (BLL) among adults aged 20-64 years (adults) and seniors aged ≥65 years (seniors). In addition, the contribution of other factors like gender, race/ethnicity, smoking, and exposure to secondhand smoke at home in explaining variability in BLL was also evaluated by fitting regression models with log10 transformed values of BLL as dependent variables. BLL decreased over 2003-2012 (p < 0.01). Irrespective of gender, race/ethnicity, and smoking status, seniors were found to have higher BLL than adults. Based on the magnitude of differences between the 5th and 95th percentiles, variability in the levels of blood lead was found to be substantially higher among seniors than among adults. Males had statistically significantly higher adjusted BLL than females (2.32 vs. 1.76 μg/dL for seniors, p < 0.01 and 1.66 vs. 1.13 μg/dL for adults, p < 0.01). Non-Hispanic whites had statistically significantly lower adjusted BLL than non-Hispanic blacks (1.99 vs. 2.42 μg/dL for seniors, p < 0.01 and 1.22 vs. 1.42 μg/dL for adults, p < 0.01). When compared with non-smokers, smokers had statistically significantly higher BLL (2.19 vs. 1.86 μg/dL for seniors, p < 0.01 and 1.54 vs. 1.22 μg/dL for adults, p < 0.01). Non-obese had statistically significantly higher BLL than obese individuals (2.11 vs. 1.93 μg/dL for seniors, p < 0.01 and 1.48 vs. 1.27 μg/dL for adults, p < 0.01). Exposure to secondhand smoke at home (SHS) was associated with statistically significantly higher BLL than when there was no exposure to SHS (β = 0.0683, p = 0.03 for seniors; β = 0.034, p = 0.034, p < 0.01 for adults).
Indexed as
Identifiers
27044289What 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.