ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2024
Who tests for lead and why? A 10-year analysis of blood lead screening, follow-up and CNS outcomes in a statewide US healthcare system.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lead exposure and antisocial behavior: A systematic review of human and animal evidence.Environment international · 2025Pooled it
- A community-based participatory research program to identify lead exposure risks and community priorities.Discover social science and health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection:2024
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to determine (1) which providers in US healthcare systems order lead tests, why and at what frequency and (2) whether current patient population lead levels are predictive of clinical outcomes.
methodsRetrospective medical record study of all blood lead tests in the Medical University of South Carolina healthcare system 2012-2016 and consequent evidence of central nervous system (CNS)-related disease across a potential 10-year window (2012-2022).
resultsAcross 4 years, 9726 lead tests resulted for 7181 patients (49.0% female; 0-94 years), representing 0.2% of the hospital population. Most tests were for young (76.6%≤age 3) and non-Hispanic black (47.2%) and Hispanic (26.7%) patients. A wide variety of providers ordered tests; however, most were ordered by paediatrics, psychiatry, internal medicine and neurology. Lead levels ranged from ≤2.0 µg/dL (80.8%) to ≥10 µg/dL (0.8%; max 36 µg/dL). 201 children (3.1%) had initial lead levels over the reference value for case management at the time (5.0 µg/dL). Many high level children did not receive follow-up testing in the system (36.3%) and those that did often failed to see levels fall below 5.0 µg/dL (80.1%). Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic patients were more likely to see lead levels stay high or go up over time. Over follow-up, children with high lead levels were more likely to receive new attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder diagnoses and new psychiatric medications. No significant associations were found between lead test results and new CNS diagnoses or medications among adults.
conclusionsHospital lead testing covers a small portion of patients but includes a wide range of ages, presentations and provider specialities. Lack of lead decline among many paediatric patients suggests there is room to improve provider guidance around when to test and follow-up.
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.