Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27153990›Full record

ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2016

Exposure to high endotoxin concentration increases wheezing prevalence among laboratory animal workers: a cross-sectional study.

Amanda Souza Freitas, Christian Silva Simoneti, Erica Ferraz, Ericson Bagatin, Izaira Tincani Brandão, Celio Lopes Silva, Marcos Carvalho Borges, Elcio Oliveira Vianna

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03021161 (The Effect of Probiotics on Asthma Risk in Animal Laboratory Workers), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03021161 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Probiotics on Asthma Risk in Animal Laboratory Workers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Sao PauloRan2017 to 2020Enrolled200ConditionsAsthma OccupationalArmsProbiotic Formula, Placebo Oral Capsule
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Occupational Allergy to Rat and Mouse in Research Laboratories.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Occupational Animal Allergy.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2018
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amanda Souza FreitasDepartment of Social Medicine, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Christian Silva SimonetiDepartment of Medicine, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Erica FerrazDepartment of Medicine, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Ericson BagatinDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Izaira Tincani BrandãoDepartment of Biochemistry and Immunology, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Celio Lopes SilvaDepartment of Biochemistry and Immunology, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Marcos Carvalho BorgesDepartment of Medicine, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Elcio Oliveira ViannaDepartment of Medicine, Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. evianna@fmrp.usp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndotoxin from Gram-negative bacteria are found in different concentrations in dust and on the ground of laboratories dealing with small animals and animal houses.

methodsCross-sectional study performed in workplaces of two universities. Dust samples were collected from laboratories and animal facilities housing rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits or hamsters and analyzed by the "Limulus amebocyte lysate" (LAL) method. We also sampled workplaces without animals. The concentrations of endotoxin detected in the workplaces were tested for association with wheezing in the last 12 months, asthma defined by self-reported diagnosis and asthma confirmed by bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) to mannitol.

resultsDust samples were obtained at 145 workplaces, 92 with exposure to animals and 53 with no exposure. Exposed group comprised 412 subjects and non-exposed group comprised 339 subjects. Animal-exposed workplaces had higher concentrations of endotoxin, median of 34.2 endotoxin units (EU) per mg of dust (interquartile range, 12.6-65.4), as compared to the non-exposed group, median of 10.2 EU/mg of dust (interquartile range, 2.6-22.2) (p < 0.001). The high concentration of endotoxin (above whole sample median, 20.4 EU/mg) was associated with increased wheezing prevalence (p < 0.001), i.e., 61 % of workers exposed to high endotoxin concentration reported wheezing in the last 12 months compared to 29 % of workers exposed to low endotoxin concentration. The concentration of endotoxin was not associated with asthma report or with BHR confirmed asthma.

conclusionExposure to endotoxin is associated with a higher prevalence of wheezing, but not with asthma as defined by the mannitol bronchial challenge test or by self-reported asthma. Preventive measures are necessary for these workers.

Indexed as

AdultAir Pollution, IndoorAnimalsAsthmaBrazilBronchial HyperreactivityCricetinaeCross-Sectional StudiesEndotoxinsFemaleGuinea PigsHumansMaleMiceOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureEndotoxinsAnimal handlerEndotoxinOccupational diseaseWheezing

Identifiers

PMID27153990
PMCPMC4859959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.