Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32862785›Full record

ArticleToxicology and industrial health2020

Practical learnings from an epidemiology study on TDI-related occupational asthma: Part I-Cumulative exposure is not a good indicator of risk.

Patrick M Plehiers, Anne H Chappelle, Mark W Spence

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology and industrial health, 2020. 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.

Anne H Chappelle
Mark W Spence550512International Isocyanate Institute, Inc. (III), Boonton, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The anonymized data of an epidemiology study on incidence of toluene diisocyanate (TDI)-related occupational asthma in three US-based TDI production facilities have been reanalyzed to identify where to best focus exposure reduction efforts in industrial practice to reduce the risk of sensitization to TDI. Since the induction of sensitization has sometimes been attributed to cumulative exposure, this relationship was examined first. Gross cumulative exposure values (i.e. not taking into account whether respiratory protection was used or not) and net cumulative exposure values (i.e. accounting for the use of respiratory protection) per participant were calculated based on the duration of their study participation and the average time-weighted average value of the exposure group to which they belonged. These two sets of cumulative exposure data were compared with asthma incidence using logistic regression. Incidence was zero among workers who rarely come into contact with open plant systems (e.g. during maintenance or spills). Notwithstanding, no statistically significant relationship between asthma incidence and either gross or net cumulative exposure could be determined. This is shown to be consistent with the results of several other epidemiology studies on TDI-related occupational asthma. In conclusion, cumulative exposure values are not a good indicator of the risk of developing TDI-related occupational asthma.

Indexed as

Chemical IndustryAir Pollutants, OccupationalAsthma, OccupationalDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansLogistic ModelsOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthTime FactorsToluene 2,4-DiisocyanateUnited StatesAir Pollutants, OccupationalToluene 2,4-Diisocyanatecumulative exposureoccupational asthmarespiratory protectionrisk indicatorToluene diisocyanate (TDI)

Identifiers

PMID32862785
PMCPMC7750668

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.