Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32140043›Full record

ArticleSaudi journal of biological sciences2020

Occupational exposure and respiratory health of workers at small scale industries.

Ijaz Ahmad, Mansour A Balkhyour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi journal of biological sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Targeted medical examinations for workers exposed to fumigants.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2022
    Review
  11. Speech Impaired by Half Masks Used for the Respiratory Tract Protection.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Ijaz AhmadDepartment of Environmental Science, Faculty of Basic and Applied Sciences, International Islamic University, 44000 Islamabad, Pakistan.
Mansour A BalkhyourDepartment of Environmental Science, Faculty of Meteorology, Environment and Arid Land Agriculture, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80208, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Certain occupations like welding, painting, and vehicle repairing are associated with regular exposure to dust, exhausts, fuels, fumes, PM, and vapors of welding, solvents, and paint. Many studies have proved a reduction in lung functions due to exposure to these agents. The present study aims to assess and compare respiratory symptoms and pulmonary functions among exposed and non-exposed persons as well as suggests controls respectively. A cross-sectional case study was carried out among small scale industry workers having matched demographic and anthropometric parameters. Medical Research Council (MRC) questionnaire and Micro Direct computerized automated spirometer were used for recording respiratory ailments and pulmonary function tests (PFT) respectively. The percentages of mechanics, welders and painters were 40.9, 31.8, and 27.3 respectively. The highest reported respiratory symptom was chest tightness and whistling among exposed (22.7%) and unexposed (10%). Among study exposed cases, the occupational exposure was found as often (22.7%), sometimes (68.2%) and never (9.1%) while the reported use of airway protection (masks) was very low. Overall respiratory health of the exposed versus controls was reported as excellent (54.5% vs 73.4%), good (27.3% vs 23.3%) and average (18.2% vs 3.3%) respectively. The exposed group on contrary to control one has decreased mean values for FEV1 (3.12 vs 3.50), FVC (4.12 vs 4.43), FEV1/ FVC % (79.60 vs 80.79) and PEF (414.77 vs 523.16). The present study reveals that exposed workers are at increased risk of developing respiratory symptoms and decreased pulmonary functions as compared to unexposed. Such exposure research studies are instrumental in health status evaluation of workers. However, this area has been neglected by the researchers in Saudi Arabia. It is, thus, strongly recommended to carry out prospective studies to substantiate the study results including large sample size, background pollutants concentrations and biological monitoring. Control strategies should be adopted to reduce the vapor concentration in the ambient air, protect and promote respiratory health of workers.

Indexed as

FEV1FVCOccupationsPulmonary functionsRespiratory health

Identifiers

PMID32140043
PMCPMC7051098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.