Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31475687›Full record

ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2019

The reference values in the interpretation of toxicological data.

Ivo Iavicoli, Veruscka Leso, Luca Fontana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Ivo IavicoliUniversità degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II". ivo.iavicoli@unina.it.
Veruscka Leso
Luca Fontana

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The worldwide gradual expansion of industrialization has led to a dramatic increase in the production and use of chemical substances. This has resulted in a greater dispersion of these elements in the environment and in an increased exposure of the general population and workers. In this scenario, a thorough knowledge of exposure levels is needed in order to assess chemical risks in environmental and occupational settings. Biological monitoring is among the most useful tools for assessing exposure. However, in order to provide really effective guidance in the application/implementation of risk management measures, biomonitoring results need to be compared with appropriate references. Reference values (RVs) are an excellent resource since useful information for a correct interpretation of toxicological data can be obtained by comparing them with biomonitoring results. In the field of public health, this may enable us to identify potential sources of exposure, define the principal and most frequently exploited routes of exposure, and outline chemical absorption. Similarly, in occupational medicine, RVs can be used to give meaning to biomonitoring findings, especially when a biological limit value is not available for the chemical in question. Furthermore, these values are a valid tool for assessing exposure to chemical carcinogens. Therefore, by integrating reference values in an appropriate and complete system of guide values that also includes action levels and biological limit values, we could obtain both an adequate assessment of exposure and a better understanding of toxicological data.

Indexed as

CarcinogensEnvironmental MonitoringPublic HealthHumansReference ValuesRisk AssessmentToxicologyCarcinogens

Identifiers

PMID31475687
PMCPMC7809994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.