ReviewCanadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique2016
Designing exposure registries for improved tracking of occupational exposure and disease.
Review in Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique, 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.
- Exposure Registries as a Prevention Tool for Occupational Cancers: Establishing a New Hazardous Drug Registry for Oncology Personnel.American journal of industrial medicine · 2025Article
- Assessment of Occupational Carcinogenic Risk by Comparing Data from the Italian Register of Occupational Exposures to Carcinogens (SIREP) with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Bringing Light into Darkness-Comparison of Different Personal Dosimeters for Assessment of Solar Ultraviolet Exposure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Electronic Waste Recycling: Occupational Exposures and Work-Related Health Effects.Current environmental health reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRegistries are one strategy for collecting information on occupational exposure and disease in populations. Recently leaders in the Canadian occupational health and safety community have shown an interest in the use of occupational exposure registries. The primary goal of this study was to review a series of Canadian exposure registries to identify their strengths and weaknesses as a tool for tracking occupational exposure and disease in Canada. A secondary goal was to identify the features of an exposure registry needed to specifically contribute to prevention, including the identification of new exposure-disease relationships.
methodsA documentary review of five exposure registries from Canada was completed. Strengths and limitations of the registries were compared and key considerations for designing new registries were identified.
resultsThe goals and structure of the exposure registries varied considerably. Most of the reviewed registries had voluntary registration, which presents challenges for the use of the data for either surveillance or epidemiology. It is recommended that eight key issues be addressed when planning new registries: clear registry goal(s), a definition of exposure, data to be collected (and how it will be used), whether enrolment will be mandatory, as well as ethical, privacy and logistical considerations.
conclusionsWhen well constructed, an exposure registry can be a valuable tool for surveillance, epidemiology and ultimately the prevention of occupational disease. However, exposure registries also have a number of actual and potential limitations that need to be considered.
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.