ArticleNeurotoxicology2018
A screening tool to detect clinical manganese neurotoxicity.
Article in Neurotoxicology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Rapid Motor Task-Based Screening Tool for Parkinsonism in Community-Based Studies.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Neurotoxicity of manganese: Indications for future research and public health intervention from the Manganese 2016 conference.Neurotoxicology · 2018Article
- Diagnosis of manganism and manganese neurotoxicity: A workshop report.Medicine internationalArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Manganese (Mn) over-exposure in occupational settings is associated with basal ganglia toxicity and a movement disorder characterized by parkinsonism (i.e., the signs and symptoms of Parkinson disease). A simple test to help non-neurologists identify workers with clinical Mn neurotoxicity represents an unmet need. In a cohort of Mn-exposed workers from welding worksites, with extensive clinical data, we developed a linear regression model to predict the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale motor subsection part 3 (UPDRS3) score. We primarily considered factors easily obtained in a primary care or occupational medicine clinic, specifically easily assessed signs of parkinsonism and factors likely to be associated with UPDRS3 such as age, timed motor task results, and selected symptoms/conditions. Secondarily we considered other demographic variables and welding exposure. We based the model on 596 examined workers age≤65years and with timed motor task data. We selected the model based on simplicity for clinical application, biologic plausibility, and statistical significance and magnitude of regression coefficients. The model contained age, timed motor task scores for each hand, and indicators of action tremor, speech difficulty, anxiety, depression, loneliness, pain and current cigarette smoking. When we examined how well the model identified workers with clinically significant parkinsonism (UPDRS3≥15) the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67, 0.77). With a cut point that provided 80% sensitivity, specificity was 52%, the positive predictive value in our cohort was 29%, and the negative predictive value was 92%. Using the same cut point for predicted UPDRS3, the AUC was nearly identical for UPDRS3≥10, and was 0.83 (95% CI 0.76, 0.90) for UPDRS3≥20. Since welding exposure data was not required after including its putative effects, this model may help identify workers with clinically significant Mn neurotoxicity in a variety of settings, as a first step in a tiered occupational screening program.
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.