Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423230›Full record

ArticleAnnals of occupational and environmental medicine2018

Review of carcinogenicity of hexavalent chrome and proposal of revising approval standards for an occupational cancers in Korea.

Jungwon Kim, Sangyun Seo, Yangho Kim, Dae Hwan Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of occupational and environmental medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Chromium Monitoring in Water by Colorimetry Using Optimised 1,5-Diphenylcarbazide Method.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  8. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jungwon Kim1Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Sangyun Seo1Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Yangho KimDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
Dae Hwan Kim3Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University, Busan, Republic of Korea.
Ulsan University Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study is to suggest revised recognition standards for occupational disease due to chromium (VI) by reflecting recent domestic and international research works and considering domestic exposure status with respect to target organs, exposure period, and cumulative exposure dose in relation to the chromium (VI)-induced occupational disease compensation.

methodsIn this study, the reports published by major international institutions such as World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2012), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (2006), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2013), American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) (2004), National Toxicology Program (NTP) (2014), and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR) (2012) were reviewed and the recent research works searched by PubMed were summarized.

resultsConsidering the recent research works and the domestic situation, only lung cancer is conserved in the legislative bill in relation to chromium (VI), and the exposure period is not included in the bill. Nasal and paranasal sinus cancer was excluded from the list of cancers that are compensated as the chromium (VI)- induced occupational disease, while lung cancer remains in the list. In the view of legislative unity, considering the fact that only the cancers having sufficient evidence are included in the conventional list of cancers compensated as occupational disease, nasal and paranasal sinus cancer having limited evidence were excluded from the list.The exposure period was also removed from the legislative bill due to the insufficient evidence. Recent advices in connection with cumulative exposure dose were proposed, and other considerable points were provided with respect to individual occupational relevance.

conclusionsIt is suggested that the current recognition standard which is "Lung cancer or nasal and paranasal sinus cancer caused by exposure to chromium (VI) or compounds thereof (exposure for two years or longer), or nickel compounds" should be changed to "Lung cancer caused by exposure to chromium (VI) or compounds thereof, and lung cancer or nasal and paranasal sinus cancer caused by exposure to nickel compounds".

Indexed as

CancerHexavalent chromiumLung neoplasmOccupational exposure

Identifiers

PMID29423230
PMCPMC5791242
OpenAlexW2796951236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.