Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34343220›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

A systematic review and meta-analysis on international studies of prevalence, mortality and survival due to coal mine dust lung disease.

Cynthia Lu, Paramita Dasgupta, Jessica Cameron, Lin Fritschi, Peter Baade

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cynthia LuCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Paramita DasguptaCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Jessica CameronCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8161-0358
Lin FritschiSchool of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Western Australia, Australia.
Peter BaadeCancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8576-8868
Cancer Council Queensland · AUCurtin University · AUGriffith University · AUQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoal mine dust lung disease comprises a group of occupational lung diseases including coal workers pneumoconiosis. In many countries, there is a lack of robust prevalence estimates for these diseases. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published contemporary estimates on prevalence, mortality, and survival for coal mine dust lung disease worldwide.

methodsSystematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for English language peer-reviewed articles published from 1/1/2000 to 30/03/2021 that presented quantitative estimates of prevalence, mortality, or survival for coal mine dust lung disease. Review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. Articles were screened independently by two authors. Studies were critically assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Pooled prevalence estimates were obtained using random effects meta-analysis models. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistics and publication bias using Egger's tests.

resultsOverall 40 studies were included, (31 prevalence, 8 mortality, 1 survival). Of the prevalence estimates, fifteen (12 from the United States) were retained for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence estimate for coal workers pneumoconiosis among underground miners was 3.7% (95% CI 3.0-4.5%) with high heterogeneity between studies. The pooled estimate of coal workers pneumoconiosis prevalence in the United States was higher in the 2000s than in the 1990s, consistent with published reports of increasing prevalence following decades of declining trends. Sub-group analyses also indicated higher prevalence among underground miners, and in Central Appalachia. The mortality studies were suggestive of reduced pneumoconiosis mortality rates over time, relative to the general population.

conclusionThe ongoing prevalence of occupational lung diseases among contemporary coal miners highlights the importance of respiratory surveillance and preventive efforts through effective dust control measures. Limited prevalence studies from countries other than the United States limits our understanding of the current disease burden in other coal-producing countries.

Indexed as

AnthracosisCoal MiningHumansInternational AgenciesLung DiseasesOccupational DiseasesOccupational ExposurePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID34343220
PMCPMC8330946
OpenAlexW3192212592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.