Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39911319›Full record

ArticleToxicology reports2025

Comparison of real-time instrument use and absorbent tube method for measuring formaldehyde in working environments: A health risk assessment for gross anatomy staff.

Phanpina Soonklang, Arroon Ketsakorn, Nontiya Homkham, Chalermchai Chaikittiporn, Saowanee Norkaew

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Phanpina SoonklangFaculty of Public Health, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Klong Nueng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand.
Arroon KetsakornFaculty of Public Health, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Klong Nueng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand.
Nontiya HomkhamFaculty of Public Health, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Klong Nueng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand.
Chalermchai ChaikittipornFaculty of Public Health, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Klong Nueng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand.
Saowanee NorkaewFaculty of Public Health, Thammasat University, Rangsit Campus, Klong Nueng, Klong Luang, Pathum Thani 12121, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Formaldehyde is widely used for the preservation of cadavers, exposing workers to potential risks of formaldehyde exposure in the workplace. This study compared the performance of real-time instruments (Gasmet) and absorbent tube methods in controlling formaldehyde levels in gross anatomy dissections with four working process areas. The concentrations of formaldehyde were determined over working periods ranging from 2 to 5 h. For the Gasmet results, a Monte Carlo simulation was applied in the uncertainty analysis to predict the formaldehyde concentration. Data collection involved questionnaires that included personal and work-related information. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to test-retest reliability between the two instruments. The results showed that the Gasmet direct reading and absorbent tube concentrations were not significantly different (

Indexed as

Air monitoringDirect readingFormaldehyde monitoringMonte carloOccupational exposureOccupational safetyWorkplace environment

Identifiers

PMID39911319
PMCPMC11794169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.