ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2020
Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProfessional exposure to respirable dust containing crystalline silica is of great interest for the serious lung diseases resulting from exposure.
methodsDuring the period 1986-2019, 3611 exposure data to crystalline silica were collected from companies in central Italy. The data were divided and statistically analyzed based on the sampling system (Cyclone Dorr Oliver, CIP 10-R, Cyclone GS3, SKC plastic selector, Cyclone Higgins-Dewell and Cyclone Lippmann) and the ATECO code (code of economic activity, Italian acronym, used to classify companies when they interface with public institutions) of the companies in which they were collected. For each ATECO code, the division was made according to the type of sampling (personal or static) and the descriptive statistics of the data were calculated.
resultsOverall, for personal samples, 8.8% of the data exceeds 0.1 mg/m3, 19.6% exceeds 0.05 mg/m3 and 33.8% exceeds 0.025 mg/m3, the limit values set by the EU Directive 2019/130, suggested by the SCOEL and published by ACGIH respectively. The ATECO codes with the highest worker exposure (geometric means 0.067 and 0.069 mg/m3) were 23.31.00 (manufacture of ceramic tiles for floors and walls) and 23.42.00 (manufacture of ceramic sanitary ware), while the lowest exposure is found in 81.29.91 (cleaning and washing of public areas, removal of snow and ice including shedding of sand) with a geometric mean of 0.002 mg/m3. DISCUSSION: Despite the general reduction over time, there are still many sectors in which data are higher than the current occupational exposure limits; especially in these sectors it is necessary to implement the measures to fully assess worker exposure.
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.