ArticleEnvironmental and occupational health practice2022
Use of nasal filters for allergen exposure measurements in veterinary practices.
Article in Environmental and occupational health practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In this study, we applied novel nasal filters to assess animal allergen exposure of veterinary staff during their normal daily routine. Methods: Rhinix nasal filters were worn during work by 94 employees at different veterinary practices and 18 employees at a research institute, who acted as controls representing an animal-free environment. Contact with animals and the activities performed were documented by the study participants using a short questionnaire. Major allergens of cats (Fel d 1), dogs (Can f 1), and domestic mites (DM) were measured using fluorescence enzyme immunoassays. Results: At the practices, Can f 1 was detected in 98%, Fel d 1 in 82%, and DM allergens in 39% of the samples. Allergens were also detected in some control samples (6% for Can f 1, 39% for Fel d 1, and 17% for DM) but in very low concentrations. There was a highly significant difference between allergen levels in veterinary workers who treated at least one cat or dog during the sampling period and those who did not (2.66 vs. 0.70 ng/filter for Can f 1 and 1.01 vs. 0.20 ng/filter for Fel d 1). The amount of sampled Fel d 1 increased significantly with increasing duration of contact with cats. This effect was not observed for Can f 1. Conclusions: The majority of veterinary workers are exposed to dog and cat allergens, even without direct contact with these animals. Rhinix nasal filters may be considered a simple and easily applicable method for monitoring personal allergen exposure.
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.