Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36466494›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Occupational health risk assessment methods in China: A scoping review.

Lifang Zhou, Panqi Xue, Yixin Zhang, Fang Wei, Jiena Zhou, Shasha Wang, Yong Hu, Xiaoming Lou, Hua Zou

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lifang ZhouInstitute of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China.
Panqi XueInstitute of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China.
Yixin ZhangSchool of Medicine, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China.
Fang WeiInstitute of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China.
Jiena ZhouDepartment of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Shasha WangShaoxing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Shaoxing, China.
Yong HuInstitute of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China.
Xiaoming LouInstitute of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China.
Hua ZouInstitute of Occupational Health and Radiation Protection, Zhejiang Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hangzhou, China.
Zhejiang Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CNHangzhou Normal University · CNShaoxing University · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Over the decades, many assessment methods have been developed around the world and used for occupational health risk assessment (OHRA). This scoping review integrated the literature on methodological studies of OHRA in China and aimed to identifies the research hot-spots and methodological research perspectives on OHRA in China. Methods: A scoping review of literature was undertaken to explore the research progress on OHRA methods in China. Focusing on OHRA methods, the authors systematically searched Chinese and English databases and relevant guideline websites from the date of establishment to June 30, 2022. Databases included Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, the China National Knowledge Internet, WanFang Database. Some other websites were also searched to obtain gray literature. The extracted information included the author, year, region of first author, the target industry, risk assessment model, study type, the main results and conclusions. Results: Finally, 145 of 9,081 studies were included in this review. There were 108 applied studies, 30 comparative studies and 7 optimization studies on OHRA in China. The OHRA methods studied included: (1) qualitative methods such as Romanian model, Australian model, International Council on Mining and Metals model, and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Essentials; (2) quantitative methods such as the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency inhalation risk assessment model, Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic, and Monte Carlo simulation; (3) semi-quantitative methods such as Singapore model, Fuzzy mathematical risk assessment model, Likelihood Exposure Consequence method and Occupational Hazard Risk Index assessment method; (4) comprehensive method (Chinese OHRA standard GBZ/T 298-2017). Each of the OHRA methods had its own strengths and limitations. In order to improve the applicability of OHRA methods, some of them have been optimized by researchers. Conclusions: There is a wide range of OHRA methods studied in China, including applied, comparative, and optimization studies. Their applicability needs to be further tested through further application in different industries. Furthermore, quantitative comparative studies, optimization studies, and modeling studies are also needed.

Indexed as

Risk AssessmentAustraliaChinaDatabases, FactualProbabilityUnited Statesoccupational healthqualitativequantitativerisk assessmentscoping reviewsemi-quantitative

Identifiers

PMID36466494
PMCPMC9714297
OpenAlexW4309173059

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.