ArticlePloS one2022
Respiratory symptoms and use of dust-control measures in New Zealand construction workers - A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Work-related respiratory health conditions among construction workers: a systematic narrative review.BMJ open respiratory research · 2023Pooled it
- Level of occupational stress and quality of life among construction workers in Malaysia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exposome-wide associations and polyexposure risks of workplace chemical exposures on adult asthma: The Personalized Environment and Genes Study (PEGS).Environmental research · 2025Article
- Occupational Risks and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Indian Subcontinent: A Critical Review.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dust-exposed construction workers have an increased risk of respiratory symptoms, but the efficacy of dust-control measures remains unclear. This study compared respiratory symptoms, using a modified European Community Respiratory Health Survey questionnaire, between construction workers (n = 208) and a reference group of bus drivers and retail workers (n = 142). Within the construction workers, we assessed the effect of collective (on-tool vacuum/'wet-cut' systems) and personal (respirators) exposure controls on symptom prevalence. Logistic regression assessed differences between groups, adjusted for age, ethnicity, and smoking status. Construction workers were more likely to cough with phlegm at least once a week (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7) and cough with phlegm ≥3 months/year for ≥2 years (OR 2.8, CI 1.2-7.0), but they had similar or fewer asthma symptoms. Construction workers who had worked for 11-20 years reported more cough/phlegm symptoms (OR 5.1, 1.7-15.0 for cough with phlegm ≥3 months/year for ≥2 years) than those who had worked <10 years (OR 1.9, 0.6-5.8), when compared to the reference group. Those who used 'wet-cut' methods reported less cough with phlegm, although the evidence for this association was weak (OR 0.4, CI 0.2-1.1 for cough with phlegm at least once a week); use of on-tool extraction showed a similar trend. No associations between respiratory protective equipment-use and symptoms were found. In conclusion, construction workers reported more symptoms suggestive of bronchitis, particularly those employed in the industry for >10 years. Use of collective dust exposure controls might protect against these symptoms, but this requires confirmation in a larger study.
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.