ArticleToxics2025
Chemical Risks, Genotoxicity, and Oxidative Stress in Healthcare Workers.
Article in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genotoxic Damage and microRNA Dysregulation in Firefighters: An Integrated Biomonitoring Case Study.Journal of xenobiotics · 2026Article
- Genotoxicity Assessment in Occupational Health Personnel Exposed to Cytostatic Drugs in a Peruvian Hospital.Genes · 2026Article
- Investigation of Oxidative DNA Damage Levels in Urine of Healthcare Workers Exposed to Ionizing Radiation.Toxics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background/Objectives Using genotoxicity tests and oxidative stress indicators, the study evaluated the relationship between healthcare workers' (HCWs) exposure to chemical risks. This study aimed to evaluate the oxidative damage and genotoxic effects of sub chronic or long-term volatile organic compounds (VOCs) exposure in HCWs.
methodsPathology workers (Group 1), cleaning workers (Group 2), and medical secretaries (Group 3) were categorized, and VOCs and alkaline dust were measured for Groups 1 and 2 using appropriate occupational hygiene methods. Genotoxicity was assessed using alkaline comet and micronucleus (MN) assays. Oxidative stress indicators were analyzed in first-morning urine samples through liquid chromatography.
resultsA total of 90 HCWs participated in the study. The mean R-cdA levels were 0.05 ± 0.02 for medical secretaries, 0.07 ± 0.03 for cleaning workers, and 0.06 ± 0.07 nmol/mmol creatinine for pathology workers (
conclusionImplementing occupational hygiene measures in the working environment has effectively reduced occupational risks. The lack of significant differences in genotoxicity and oxidative stress parameters between the exposed and control groups supports the notion that the exposure limit values are protective.
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.