ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2018
Predictors for Increased and Reduced Rat and Mouse Allergen Exposure in Laboratory Animal Facilities.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel ambient air sampler for detection of allergens and endotoxin.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Occupational Allergy to Rat and Mouse in Research Laboratories.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026Review
- Furry Animal Allergy: Lipocalins, Serum Albumins, and Secretoglobins-Cross-Reactivity, Diagnosis, and Management Strategies.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Exposure to rat and mouse allergens during work in laboratory animal facilities represents a risk for being sensitized and developing allergic diseases, and it is important to keep the exposure level as low as possible. The objective of this study was to characterize the personal Mus m 1 and Rat n 1 exposure during work in laboratory animal facilities, and to investigate the effect of identified predictors of increased and reduced exposure. Methods: Mus m 1 and Rat n 1 were analysed in whole day or task-based personal air samples by enhanced sensitivity sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Information about cage-and-rack systems, tasks, and other conditions known to influence the allergen exposure was registered. Predictors for allergen exposure were identified by multiple linear regression analyses. Results: The median allergen exposure was 3.0 ng m-3 Mus m 1 and 0.5 ng m-3 Rat n 1, with large task-dependent variations among the samples. The highest exposed job group were animal technicians. Cage emptying and cage washing in the cage washroom represented the highest exposure, whereas animal experiments in the lab/operation room represented the lowest exposure, with laminar airflow bench being an exposure-reducing determinant. Cage changing was the highest exposed task in the animal room, where individually ventilated cages (IVCs) were predictors of reduced exposure for both Mus m 1 and Rat n 1, whereas cage-rack systems with open shelves and sliding doors were predictors of increased Rat n 1 exposure. Cages of IVC type with positive air pressure (IVC+) as well as open shelves and sliding doors were strong predictors of increased exposure during cage emptying and cage washing. Conclusions: Significant different exposure levels depending on type of work and task imply different risks of sensitization and allergy development. The fact that IVC+ cages have opposite impact on Mus m 1 and Rat n 1 exposure during different tasks may have positive clinical implications when taken into account.
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.