ReviewCritical reviews in toxicology2017
Do current OELs for silica protect from obstructive lung impairment? A critical review of epidemiological data.
Review in Critical reviews in toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of lung hyperinflation in occupational chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a multicentric cross-sectional study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Article
- The significance of serum S100 calcium-binding protein A4 in silicosis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- Hospitalisation costs of malignant mesothelioma: results from the Italian hospital discharge registry (2001-2018).BMJ open · 2021Article
- Costs of asbestosis and silicosis hospitalization in Italy (2001-2018) : Costs of asbestosis and silicosis hospitalization.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021Article
- Decreased Soluble Receptor of Advanced Glycation End Product Levels Correlated with Inflammation in Silicosis.Mediators of inflammation · 2020Article
- Emerging Role of Immunosuppression in Diseases Induced by Micro- and Nano-Particles: Time to Revisit the Exclusive Inflammatory Scenario.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2017
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhalation of respirable crystalline silica (RCS) can lead to serious health effects such as silicosis and lung cancer. There also seems to be a general consensus to consider that RCS exposure is associated with obstructive lung impairment or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a leading cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability worldwide. It is, however, not clear whether occupational exposure levels (OELs), generally set to prevent silicosis, also protect workers from developing an obstructive impairment. This review aims at clarifying the potential relationship between RCS exposure and obstructive lung impairment as defined by spirometry. Eleven studies that reported both silica exposure levels and spirometry results were identified. We systematically extracted data pertaining to (a) the population studied, (b) level of exposure to RCS and other pollutants, (c) spirometry procedure and interpretation, and (d) methodology used to investigate the relationship between RCS exposure and spirometry. These studies add supporting evidence in favor of a qualitative association between occupational activities exposing to RCS and obstructive lung dysfunction. However, no well-founded quantitative estimate can be drawn from these investigations; the available relevant literature does not allow defining a RCS exposure threshold associated with an increased risk of obstructive lung dysfunction, as defined by spirometry, in workers without silicosis. Further research is needed, but, as highlighted in this review, conducting epidemiological studies with both valid exposure and outcome measurements is a real challenge.
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.