Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28091866›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2017

Review of Diagnostic Challenges in Occupational Asthma.

Jacques A Pralong, Andre Cartier

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Work-related asthma.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  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

2 authors.

Jacques A PralongInstitute for Work and Health, Route de la Corniche 2, 1066, Epalinges, Switzerland.
Andre CartierHôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal, 5400 Boulevard Gouin Ouest, Montréal, QC, H4J 1C5, Canada. andre.cartier@umontreal.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewOccupational asthma (OA) is one of the most frequent occupational diseases and its diagnosis is often difficult. This review summarizes its current diagnostic challenges. RECENT

findingsOA is associated with significant health and socio-economic burden. It is underdiagnosed and physicians need to adopt a stepwise approach to confirm the diagnosis. Although early removal from exposure to the offending agent is associated with a better prognosis, physicians should try to confirm the diagnosis of work-related asthma before taking a worker off work. A proper occupational and medical history is very important but is not enough to make the diagnosis of OA. Objective evidence of work-related asthma is required and this represents a serious challenge to most physicians. Measurement of non-specific bronchial responsiveness (NSBR) and spirometry may confirm the diagnosis of asthma but do not confirm the diagnosis of OA. Serial monitoring of peak expiratory flows (PEF), NSBR, and airway inflammation at and off work may confirm the diagnosis of OA but are often difficult to perform. Confirming sensitization by skin prick tests or specific IgE may help to support the diagnosis of OA. Specific inhalation challenges (SIC) in the lab or at work are considered the reference standard but are of limited access. Medical surveillance programs along with primary prevention (reducing exposure) may help to reduce the burden of OA, but the ideal program has yet to be defined. The diagnostic workup of OA remains a challenge and needs a rigorous stepwise evaluation.

Indexed as

Asthma, OccupationalHumansOccupational ExposureSkin TestsMonitoringOccupational asthmaPeak expiratory flowSpecific inhalation challenges

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.