ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Assessment of a Screening Questionnaire to Identify Exposure to Lead in Pregnant Women.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lead readily crosses the placenta and displays adverse effects on birth outcomes and neurodevelopment. Systematic identification of the risk of exposure during pregnancy is essential but rarely performed, probably due to hospital staff's workload and their lack of awareness. We aimed to evaluate the relevance of a questionnaire to screen pregnant women for lead exposure. A cross-sectional, multicentre study was carried out on a population of 792 pregnant women from February 2018 to May 2020. A total of 596 women had a blood lead test: 68.5% had blood lead levels below 10 μg/L. The estimated prevalence above 25 µg/L was 4% (95% confidence interval (CI) [2.6-5.9]) and 1.3% had levels above 50 µg/L (95% CI [0.6-2.6]). Multivariate analysis showed that three risk factors significantly increased the probability of blood lead levels above 25 µg/L: the use of traditional cosmetics (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 3.90; 95% CI [1.65-9.21];
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.