Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34444461›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Validation of a Brief Screening Instrument for Chemical Intolerance in a Large U.S. National Sample.

Raymond F Palmer, Tatjana Walker, David Kattari, Rudy Rincon, Roger B Perales, Carlos R Jaén, Carl Grimes, Dana R Sundblad, Claudia S Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Raymond F PalmerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Tatjana WalkerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2421-0099
David KattariHayward Score, Carmel, CA 93921, USA.
Rudy RinconDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Roger B PeralesDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.
Carlos R JaénDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5904-4719
Carl GrimesHayward Score, Carmel, CA 93921, USA.
Dana R SundbladHayward Score, Carmel, CA 93921, USA.
Claudia S MillerDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78229, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChemical intolerance (CI) is characterized by multisystem symptoms triggered by low levels of exposure to xenobiotics including chemicals, foods/food additives, and drugs/medications. Prior prevalence estimates vary from 8-33% worldwide. Clinicians and researchers need a brief, practical screening tool for identifying possible chemical intolerance. This large, population-based study describes the validation of a three-item screening questionnaire, the Brief Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (BREESI), against the international reference standard used for assessing chemical intolerance, the Quick Environmental Exposure and Sensitivity Inventory (QEESI).

methodsMore than 10,000 people in the U.S. responded to the BREESI and the QEESI in a population-based survey. We calculated the overall prevalence of CI in this sample, as well as by gender, age, and income. Common statistical metrics were used to evaluate the BREESI as a screener for CI against the QEESI.

resultsThe prevalence estimate for QEESI-defined chemical intolerance in the U.S. was 20.39% (95% CI 19.63-21.15%). The BREESI had 91.26% sensitivity (95% CI: 89.20-93.04%) and 92.89% specificity (95% CI: 91.77-93.90%). The positive likelihood ratio was 12.83 (95% CI: 11.07-14.88), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08-0.12). Logistic regression demonstrates that the predicted probability of CI increased sharply with each increase in the number of BREESI items endorsed (Odds Ratio: 5.3, 95% CI: 4.90-5.75).

conclusionsChemical intolerance may affect one in five people in the U.S. The BREESI is a new, practical instrument for researchers, clinicians, and epidemiologists. As a screening tool, the BREESI offers a high degree of confidence in case ascertainment. We recommend: screen with the BREESI, confirm with the QEESI.

Indexed as

Multiple Chemical SensitivityEnvironmental ExposureHumansMass ScreeningPrevalenceSurveys and QuestionnairesBREESIchemical intolerancedrug intolerancefood intolerancemultiple chemical sensitivityprevalenceQEESItoxicant-induced loss of tolerance

Identifiers

PMID34444461
PMCPMC8391803

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.