ArticleHeliyon2022
The construction and validation of a lead exposure screening tool for pregnant women in Thailand (ThaiL8Is).
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To construct, validate, and implement a new screening tool for lead exposure in Thai pregnant women. Methods: A cross-sectional study that included three processes: screening tool development, validation, and implementation. The participants were pregnant women who had received antenatal care at district health promotion hospitals. There were 100 pregnant women in Nakhon Si Thammarat province during the validation process, and 30 pregnant women in Phang Nga province during the implementation process. Blood lead levels (BLLs) were analysed by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening instrument, as well as the Area Under the Curve (AUC), demonstrate its validity. Results: There were 80 BLL-related items found through the collection of primary and secondary data and examined for validity and inter-rater reliability by five experts. Six items were excluded because the values were less than the criteria set. Seventy-four items remained with the Item Content Validity Index (I-CVI) = 0.80-1.00, the Content Validity Index Average (S-CVI/Ave) = 0.91, and Kappa scores = 0.76-1.00. After using 74 items collected on pregnant women, only 31 items were included in the validation process. Following that, the pooled eight items with cut-off point scores of 1 had the highest validity, which included systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, urine sugar, haemoglobin level, occupation, drinking coffee, using chemical products, and education level (ThaiL8Is). The ThaiL8Is in the validation process yielded sensitivity = 80.9%, specificity = 69.8%, and an AUC (95%CI) = 0.78 (0.69-0.87). The implementation process has confirmed the validity of the screening tool; sensitivity = 78.9%, specificity = 81.8%, and the AUC (95%CI) = 0.80 (0.63-0.97). Conclusions: The ThaiL8Is a valid screening tool for Thai pregnant women. ThaiL8Is' sensitivity in detecting the risk groups for lead exposure can be enhanced by a combination of biochemical markers used in routine prenatal screening. It can be used to screen pregnant women for early indicators of lead exposure prior to a blood lead test.
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.