ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2017
Evaluating predictors of lead exposure for activities disturbing materials painted with or containing lead using historic published data from U.S. workplaces.
Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Job-Specific Lead Exposure Gradients and Personal Protective Equipment Paradox in Informal Occupational Settings: A Case-Control Study from The Gambia.Environmental health insights · 2026Article
- Simultaneous modeling of detection rate and exposure concentration using semi-continuous models to identify exposure determinants when left-censored data may be a true zero.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2021Article
- Advancing systematic-review methodology in exposure science for environmental health decision making.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2020Article
- Validity of retrospective occupational exposure estimates of lead and manganese in a case-control study.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2019Article
- Using Decision Rules to Assess Occupational Exposure in Population-Based Studies.Current environmental health reports · 2019Review
- Case-control investigation of occupational lead exposure and kidney cancer.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2019Article
- Decision rule approach applied to estimate occupational lead exposure in a case-control study of kidney cancer.American journal of industrial medicine · 2018Article
- New Opportunities in Exposure Assessment of Occupational Epidemiology: Use of Measurements to Aid Exposure Reconstruction in Population-Based Studies.Current environmental health reports · 2017Review
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
Abstract
objectivesWe evaluated predictors of differences in published occupational lead concentrations for activities disturbing material painted with or containing lead in U.S. workplaces to aid historical exposure reconstruction.
methodsFor the aforementioned tasks, 221 air and 113 blood lead summary results (1960-2010) were extracted from a previously developed database. Differences in the natural log-transformed geometric mean (GM) for year, industry, job, and other ancillary variables were evaluated in meta-regression models that weighted each summary result by its inverse variance and sample size.
resultsAir and blood lead GMs declined 5%/year and 6%/year, respectively, in most industries. Exposure contrast in the GMs across the nine jobs and five industries was higher based on air versus blood concentrations. For welding activities, blood lead GMs were 1.7 times higher in worst-case versus non-worst case scenarios.
conclusionsJob, industry, and time-specific exposure differences were identified; other determinants were too sparse or collinear to characterize. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:189-197, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.