ArticleBMJ open2022
Screening tools for work-related asthma and their diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening tools for work-related asthma and their diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Pooled it
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWork-related asthma (WRA) refers to asthma caused by exposures at work (occupational asthma) and asthma made worse by work conditions (work-exacerbated asthma). WRA is common among working-age adults with asthma and impacts individual health, work-life and income but is often not detected by healthcare services. Earlier identification can lead to better health and employment outcomes. However, the optimal tool for screening and its effectiveness in practice is not well established. Screening tools may include whole questionnaires, questionnaire items, physiological measurements and/or immunological tests. Since the publication of the most contemporary WRA or occupational asthma-specific guidelines, further studies evaluating tools for identifying WRA have been performed. Our systematic review aims to summarise and compare the performance of screening tools for identifying WRA in both clinical and workplace settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of observational and experimental studies (1975-2021) using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, CDSR, DARE, HTA, CISDOC databases and grey literature. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies using predetermined criteria, extract data according to a schedule and assess study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Test Accuracy 2 tool. Screening tools and test accuracy measures will be summarised. Paired forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic curves of sensitivities and specificities will be evaluated for heterogeneity between studies, using subgroup analyses, where possible. If the studies are sufficiently homogenous, we will use a bivariate random effect model for meta-analysis. A narrative summary and interpretation will be provided if meta-analysis is not appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a systematic review and does not involve primary data collection, formal ethical review is not required. We will disseminate our findings through open access peer-reviewed publication as well as through other academic and social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021246031.
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.