Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40060322›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental and occupational health practice2022

Use of nasal filters for allergen exposure measurements in veterinary practices.

Eva Zahradnik, Ingrid Sander, Olaf Kleinmüller, Alexandra Beine, Frank Hoffmeyer, Albert Nienhaus, Monika Raulf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Eva ZahradnikInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (IPA, Bochum, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1256-6960
Ingrid SanderInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (IPA, Bochum, Germany.
Olaf KleinmüllerInstitute for Health Service Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexandra BeineInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (IPA, Bochum, Germany.
Frank HoffmeyerInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (IPA, Bochum, Germany.
Albert NienhausInstitute for Health Service Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE, Hamburg, Germany.
Monika RaulfInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum (IPA, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

animal allergensnasal filterpersonal exposureveterinary practice

Identifiers

PMID40060322
PMCPMC11841782

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.