ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2020
Experimental Application of Semi-Quantitative Methods for the Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Research Laboratories.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the application of some chemical risk assessment semi-quantitative methods and also to identify potential bias or differences originated by applying different methods to the same activities.
methodsWe collected the data related to the chemical agents used in three different activities of three laboratories of an Italian university; the methods we compared were: MoVaRisCh, COSHH Essentials, LaboRisCh and Datarisch.
resultsThe input parameters requested by each method are shown for each activity and for each used chemical. We collected the results obtained since the application of the four different tools in three tables. The use of some chemicals (especially of the activity n° three) shows a not irrelevant risk for the users.
conclusionOur findings show that COSHH Essentials, MoVaRisCh and Datarisch tools are consistent in the identification of a risk level; the small differences are related to risk rating, to be considered in relation with the specific structure of the method applied. The differences detected in the risk rating may be overcome by applying, for each working activity we want to assess, two or more different semi-quantitative tools. This strategy can allow to reduce the exposure to chemicals of the workers.
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.