ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Occupational Hearing Loss for Platinum Miners in South Africa: A Case Study of Data Sharing Practices and Ethical Challenges in the Mining Industry.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Challenges and Opportunities for Data Sharing Related to Artificial Intelligence Tools in Health Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Case Study From Thailand.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Association between combined occupational exposure to coal dust and noise and high-frequency hearing loss among workers: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Development of an artificial intelligence based occupational noise induced hearing loss early warning system for mine workers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relevant legislation ensures confidentiality and has paved the way for data handling and sharing. However, the industry remains uncertain regarding big data handling and sharing practices for improved healthcare delivery and medical research.
methodsA semi-qualitative cross-sectional study was used which entailed analysing miners' personal health records from 2014 to 2018. Data were accessed from the audiometry medical surveillance database (n = 480), the hearing screening database (n = 24,321), and the occupational hygiene database (n = 15,769). Ethical principles were applied to demonstrate big data protection and sharing.
resultsSome audiometry screening and occupational hygiene records were incomplete and/or inaccurate (N = 4675). The database containing medical disease and treatment records could not be accessed. Ethical challenges included a lack of clarity regarding permission rights when sharing big data, and no policy governing the divulgence of miners' personal and medical records for research.
conclusionThis case study illustrates how research can be effectively, although not maliciously, obstructed by the strict protection of employee medical data. Clearly communicated company policies should be developed for the sharing of workers' records in the mining industry to improve HCPs.
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.