Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38098819›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023

The relevance of oral exposure in the workplace: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marlene Dietz, Wiebke Ella Schnieder, Urs Schlüter, Anke Kahl

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

4 authors.

Marlene DietzUnit 4.I.4 Exposure Assessment, Exposure Science, Division 4 Hazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Dortmund, Germany.
Wiebke Ella SchniederUnit 4.I.4 Exposure Assessment, Exposure Science, Division 4 Hazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Dortmund, Germany.
Urs SchlüterUnit 4.I.4 Exposure Assessment, Exposure Science, Division 4 Hazardous Substances and Biological Agents, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Dortmund, Germany.
Anke KahlAmerica Chair of Occupational Safety, School of Mechanical Engineering and Safety Engineering, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The inclusion of all relevant exposure routes in the exposure assessment is essential for the protection of workers. However, under European chemical regulations but also for workplace risk assessments according to occupational safety and health (OSH) requirements, the quantitative assessment of oral exposure is usually neglected assuming good occupational hygiene. In contrast, several studies point to the importance of unintentional ingestion in the workplace. To our knowledge, there is no systematic analysis of the extent of this exposure route. Methods: Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess systematically the current knowledge on the relevance of occupational oral exposure using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) method. Five electronic databases and nine institutional websites were searched for all publications on the relevance. The data were extracted into a concept matrix. In the subsequent meta-analysis, the identified conclusions on the relevance were analyzed. In addition, the measurement methods or modeling approaches that were described for occupational oral exposure were determined as well as the potentially relevant workplaces and substances. Results: In total, 147 studies were included in this analysis that contain a general or several, differentiated assessments of the relevance of occupational oral exposure. Nine of these studies assessed this exposure route as irrelevant. However, 123 studies considered oral exposure as potentially contributing and 80 studies explicitly identified it as relevant. 78 and 94 of the publications described modeling and measurement approaches, respectively. The workplaces frequently identified as potentially or explicitly relevant were other indoor, other industrial or recycling workplaces. Analogously, metals, dust and powders or pesticides were the most frequently investigated substance groups. Discussion: As several studies assessed occupational oral exposure as relevant in the context of different workplaces and substances, further investigation of this exposure route is needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis serve as a basis for further development of feasible assessment methods for this route of exposure.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposurePesticidesHumansRisk AssessmentWorkplacePesticidesinadvertent ingestionoccupationoral exposureoverall exposurePRISMAworkplace

Identifiers

PMID38098819
PMCPMC10720623

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.