ReviewNeurotoxicology2018
Reducing occupational lead exposures: Strengthened standards for a healthy workforce.
Review in Neurotoxicology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Burdens of Idiopathic Developmental Intellectual Disability Attributable to Lead Exposure from 1990 to 2023 and a Projection to 2050 in the USA: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2023.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence to predict and interpret lead toxicity in pregnant women and unborn baby.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Assessment of occupational exposure to lead among workers engaged in a city bus garage in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a comparative cross-sectional study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Automated lead toxicity prediction using computational modelling framework.Health information science and systems · 2023Article
- Potential Health Risks of Lead Exposure from Early Life through Later Life: Implications for Public Health Education.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Lead exposure and antisocial behavior: A systematic review protocol.Environment international · 2022Article
- Lead Industry Influence in the 21st Century: An Old Playbook for a "Modern Metal".American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Industries With the Highest Occupational Blood Lead Test Results, California Occupational Blood Lead Registry, 2020‒2021.American journal of public health · 2022Article
- Eliminating Take-Home Exposures: Recognizing the Role of Occupational Health and Safety in Broader Community Health.Annals of work exposures and health · 2020Review
- Curcumin Attenuates Lead-Induced Cerebellar Toxicity in Rats via Chelating Activity and Inhibition of Oxidative Stress.Biomolecules · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Outdated federal and state occupational lead standards leave workers and their families vulnerable to the adverse effects of lead. Standards should be updated to reflect the best available scientific and medical evidence, which documents harm to multiple organ systems even at low levels of exposure. This commentary will review the inadequacies of existing policies, highlight susceptible populations, and briefly summarize state revision efforts to date. Federal policies must be strengthened to protect all workers and their families from this well-documented hazard.
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.