ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2025
Diagnosing and Reporting of Occupational Diseases: An Assessment Study of Reports from an Italian Workplace Safety Prevention Program Service.
Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe criteria for diagnosing and compensating for occupational diseases vary significantly between countries. The lists of occupational diseases often include diagnostic and attribution criteria that are usually not very specific. As a result, the quality of occupational disease reports is frequently subpar. The aims of this study were to assess the quality of diagnosis and reporting, as well as to evaluate the causal link between reported occupational diseases and occupational risk factors.
methodsFour occupational physicians assessed the quality of diagnosis by blindly applying Spreeuwers' performance indicators for diagnosis and reporting. Following Violante's criteria, the four evaluators also tested the levels of evidence to evaluate the quality (and associated likelihood) of the diagnosis and the quality of exposure to occupational risk factors in a sample of 104 occupational disease reports, grouped by diagnosis and examined by the local Workplace Safety Prevention Service. Separate scores for each performance indicator and the Total Quality Score (TQS, ranging from 0 to 10), along with the progressive levels of evidence, were then assigned for each occupational disease report.
resultsThe mean TQS was below the threshold of sufficiency (<6) for 28% of the diagnoses, while an almost sufficient score (>6) emerged for 72% of the diagnoses, primarily including musculoskeletal disorders, pulmonary silicosis, and noise-induced occupational hearing loss. When applying Violante's criteria for the level of evidence of the diagnosis, it was insufficient for 13.5% of the reported cases, while the level of evidence for exposure to occupational risk factors was deemed insufficient for 19% of the cases, and no cases demonstrated a level of evidence that was highly probable or nearly certain.
conclusionsDespite the overall quality of the reported cases of occupational diseases being reasonably good, improvements in the quality of diagnosis and reporting could be achieved through strict adherence to standardized diagnostic criteria and by training health personnel to collect data regarding occupational and non-occupational risk factors properly.
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.