ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2024
Trends in occupational respiratory conditions with short latency in the UK.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Deposition of Occupational Aerosol Particles in a Three-Dimensional Adult Nasal Cavity Model: An Experimental Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOccupational short-latency respiratory disease (SLRD; predominantly asthma, rhinitis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, and occupational infections) prevalence is difficult to determine but certain occupations may be associated with increased susceptibility.
aimsThis study aimed to examine which occupations and industries are currently at high risk for SLRD and determine their respective suspected causal agents.
methodsSLRD cases reported to the SWORD scheme between 1999 and 2019 were analysed to determine directly standardized rate ratios (SRR) by occupation against the average rate for all other occupations combined.
results'Bakers and flour confectioners' and 'vehicle spray painters' showed significantly raised SRR for SLRD in general, mostly due to occupational rhinitis (234.4; 95% CI 200.5-274.0) and asthma (63.5; 95% CI 51.5-78.3), respectively. Laboratory technicians also showed significantly raised SRR for occupational rhinitis (18.7; 95% CI 15.1-23.1), primarily caused by laboratory animals and insects. Metal machining setters and setter-operators showed increased SRR for occupational hypersensitivity pneumonitis (42.0; 95% CI 29.3-60.3), largely due to cutting/soluble oils. The occupation mostly affected by infectious disease was welding trades (12.9; 95% CI 5.7-29.3), mainly attributable to microbial pathogenicity.
conclusionsThis study identified the occupational groups at increased risk of developing an SLRD based on data recorded over a recent two-decade period in the UK. Occupational asthma and rhinitis were identified as the prevailing conditions and hypersensitivity pneumonitis as a potentially rising respiratory problem in the metalworking industry.
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.