ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2021
Self-reported work activities, eye, nose, and throat symptoms, and respiratory health outcomes among an industrial hog operation worker cohort, North Carolina, USA.
Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deconstructing the Livestock Manure Digester and Biogas Controversy.Current environmental health reports · 2025Review
- Assessing Residential Exposure to Microbes from Industrial Hog Operations in Rural North Carolina: Methods and Lessons Learned.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2022Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRespiratory disease among industrial hog operation (IHO) workers is well documented; however, it remains unclear whether specific work activities are more harmful and if personal protective equipment (PPE), as used by workers, can reduce adverse health outcomes.
methodsIHO workers (n = 103) completed baseline and up to eight bi-weekly study visits. Workers reported typical (baseline) and transient (bi-weekly) work activities, PPE use, and physical health symptoms. Baseline and longitudinal associations were assessed using generalized logistic and fixed-effects logistic regression models, respectively.
resultsAt baseline, reports of ever versus never drawing pig blood, applying pesticides, and increasing years worked at any IHO were positively associated with reports of eye, nose, and/or throat irritation. Over time, transient exposures, associated with dustiness in barns, cleaning of barns, and pig contact were associated with increased odds of sneezing, headache, and eye or nose irritation, particularly in the highest categories of exposure. When PPE was used, workers had lower odds of symptoms interfering with sleep (odds ratio [OR]: 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.8), and eye or nose irritation (OR: 0.1; 95% CI: 0.02-0.9). Similarly, when they washed their hands eight times or more per shift (median frequency) versus less frequently, the odds of any respiratory symptom were reduced (OR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.1-0.8).
conclusionsIn this healthy volunteer worker population, increasingly unfavorable IHO activities were associated with self-reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory health symptoms. Strong protective associations were seen between PPE use and handwashing and the odds of symptoms, warranting further investigation.
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.