Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35445039›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Risk Factors of Silicosis Progression: A Retrospective Cohort Study in China.

Hua Quan, Wenhong Wu, Guanghong Yang, Yunlin Wu, Wenlan Yang, Chunyan Min, Jinyun Shi, Lianhua Qin, Jin Huang, Jie Wang and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Silicosis: from pathogenesis to therapeutics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. From Engineered Stone Slab to Silicosis: A Synthesis of Exposure Science and Medical Evidence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Development and Validation of the Tuberculosis Risk Score for Smokers (TBRSS).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Review
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

13 authors.

Hua QuanKey Laboratory of Environment Pollution Monitoring and Disease Control, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.
Wenhong WuKey Laboratory of Environment Pollution Monitoring and Disease Control, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.
Guanghong YangGuizhou Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guiyang, China.
Yunlin WuDepartment of Pneumoconiosis, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Wenlan YangDepartment of Pulmonary Function Test, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Chunyan MinThe Fifth People's Hospital of Suzhou, Suzhou, China.
Jinyun ShiDepartment of Radiology, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Lianhua QinShanghai Key Laboratory of Tuberculosis, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Jin HuangKey Laboratory of Environment Pollution Monitoring and Disease Control, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.
Jie WangShanghai Key Laboratory of Tuberculosis, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaochen HuangShanghai Key Laboratory of Tuberculosis, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Ling MaoDepartment of Pneumoconiosis, Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai, China.
Yonghong FengKey Laboratory of Environment Pollution Monitoring and Disease Control, Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Silicosis poses a threat to workers' health due to the irreversible lung lesions. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Methods: A total of 259 patients [80 worked with artificial stone (AS), 179 with non-artificial stone (non-AS)] with confirmed silicosis were included in this study. Forty-one of AS and 91 of non-AS had approximately 2 years' follow-up records [lung function tests and high-resolution computer tomography (HRCT)]. Compared with the first records, increased, densified, or newly emerging lesions in lung HRCT images were judged as progression of the disease. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the risk factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log-rank test were used to compare prognostic factors for cumulative risk of progression. Results: In 132 patients with median follow-up of 24.0 months (IQR, 13.8, 24.9), 66 patients showed progression, in them, 36 (87.8%) were from AS group and 30 (32.9%) from non-AS group. Working experience of AS processing (hazard ratio, 5.671; 95% CI, 3.048-10.550) and complicated silicosis in CT images (hazard ratio, 2.373; 95% CI, 1.379-4.082) were the main risk factors associated with progression. Forced vital capacity decreased after 1-year (241.5 vs. 55.2 mL) and 2-year (328.1 vs. 68.8 mL) follow-up in the two groups (AS vs. non-AS). History of anti-tuberculosis medication, chest oppression and pain, ground-glass opacity, pleural abnormalities, and restrictive pulmonary dysfunction were more frequently found on HRCT images in the AS group than non-AS group. Lung functions (DL Conclusion: Prevention and protection rules are needed to be enforced in the occupation involving AS processing; smoking may be associated with declined lung function in AS patients.

Indexed as

artificial stonecomplicated silicosisHRCTlung functionprogression

Identifiers

PMID35445039
PMCPMC9013759

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.