ArticleScientific reports2024
Exploring alternatives for detecting microplastics in the human body: questionnaire survey.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microplastics and nanoplastics in inflammatory bowel disease: Mechanistic plausibility, human evidence and future research priorities.World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2026Review
- Small particles, large questions: unravelling the toxicity and potential health risks of PET micro-/nanoplastics.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2026Review
- Perceiving the Invisible Threat: Are Allergic Individuals Aware of the Health Risks of Micro- and Nanoplastics?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Age-, Sex- and Region-Specific Patterns in Sensitization Rates to Food Allergens and Food Allergy Prevalence in Croatian Children: The H2020 IMPTOX and ERDF P4 Study Findings.Children (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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microplastics (MPs) can enter the body via plastic products. Given modern plastic exposure, we seek to assess MP exposure in large populations through epidemiological tools. In this quasi-experimental study, every participant filled out a questionnaire, and those who satisfied any of the following requirements were not allowed to continue in the study: Diabetes, ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, infectious diseases. Participants in the exposure and control groups were provided three hot meals in disposable plastic tableware (DPT) (n = 30) or non-DPT (n = 30), respectively. After a month of observation, individuals in the exposure group discontinued the three meals provided in DPT (n = 27) for 1 month as the post-exposure group. Each Participant in the three groups received a questionnaire survey and fecal sample collection. We compared the differences in MP levels between different groups and used the Bland-Altman analysis method to evaluate the consistency of the results obtained by different measurement methods. Statistically significant differences in the total quantity (P (0.80 matching degree) = 0.020; P (0.65 matching degree) < 0.001) and types (Polyethylene Terephthalate (EVA) (P = 0.039), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (P = 0.022), Polyvinyl Butyral (PVB) (P = 0.013), Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE) (P = 0.039), phenolic epoxy resin (P = 0.012)) of MPs were observed between the exposure and post-exposure groups. The Bland-Altman analysis results indicate that the two methods exhibit good consistency in the three groups (control group: mean difference = 0.54, agreement limits (95% CI) = - 0.44 ~ 1.54; exposure group: mean difference = 0.41, agreement limits (95% CI) = - 0.19 ~ 1.01; post-exposure group: mean difference = 0.19, agreement limits (95% CI) = - 0.63 ~ 1.02). The method based on questionnaire surveys can substitute the method of fecal sample detection to evaluate the exposure of MP particles.
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.