Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31336998›Full record

ArticleToxics2019

Methods for the Identification of Outliers and Their Influence on Exposure Assessment in Agricultural Pesticide Applicators: A Proposed Approach and Validation Using Biological Monitoring.

Stefan Mandić-Rajčević, Claudio Colosio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Stefan Mandić-RajčevićDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan and International Centre for Rural Health of the Saints Paolo and Carlo Hospital, 20142 Milan, Italy. stefan.mandic-rajcevic@unimi.it.ORCID 0000-0002-4793-1756
Claudio ColosioDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Milan and International Centre for Rural Health of the Saints Paolo and Carlo Hospital, 20142 Milan, Italy.

Funding

Italian Institute for Insurance of Occupational Diseases and Accidents (INAIL) - Session of the Region of Lombardy Progetto Vite
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "patch" approach for skin exposure assessment can easily be combined with biological monitoring in real-life pesticide studies. Nevertheless, this approach is sensitive to outliers, with values markedly deviating from other members of the sample, which can result in a gross overestimation of exposure. This study aimed at developing methods for outlier identification and validating them while using biological monitoring. Twenty-seven workers applying mancozeb in Italian vineyards participated in this study. Their skin exposure was estimated while using the patch methodology, while ethylene-thiourea (ETU) was measured in the 24-h post-exposure urine as a biomarker of exposure. The outliers were detected using methods that were based on the multiplication of the median, the median absolute deviation, and boxplots. The detection rate varied between 2.3% and 17.3%. The estimated median skin exposure of 3.2 μg was reduced to 1.2 μg when the modified Z score was used. The highest reduction in the skin exposure was above 54 μg. The use of the modified Z score for outlier detection resulted in an increase in the correlation coefficient between the skin exposure and the urine ETU levels from 0.46 to 0.71, which suggested the validity of the approach. Future studies should standardize and improve the methods for pesticide exposure and risk assessment.

Indexed as

biological monitoringenvironmental monitoringethylene thioureamancozebpesticidesstatistical method

Identifiers

PMID31336998
PMCPMC6789726

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.