SynthesisBMC public health2025
Pulmonary function among flour mill workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlour dust, with an inherent allergic nature, increases vulnerability to various respiratory ailments. We systemically reviewed and compared literature-reported pulmonary function parameters to quantify pulmonary dysfunction among individuals with high flour dust exposure (among flour mill workers) and relatively un-exposed groups.
methodsStudies that compared pulmonary function parameters for flour dust exposed and unexposed control groups were systemically searched in PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception to June 2024. The Newcastle Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias among included studies. With the random effect model, we pooled (along with 95% CI) the mean difference for forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV
resultsThis quantitative synthesis included twenty-two studies involving 2,482 flour dust exposed and 1,925 control participants. The pooled mean difference for FEV
conclusionStudy observed pulmonary function deficits associated with exposure to flour dust. However, considering the quality of primary studies and higher heterogeneity, high-quality larger studies with longitudinal design are required to affirm the effects of flour dust on lung function.
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.