ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of self-reported and job-exposure matrix assessed workplace inhalant exposures and their association with obstructive airways disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Civilian Occupational Exposure to Vapors, Gas, Dust, or Fumes and Respiratory Health Among United States Military Veterans.American journal of industrial medicine · 2026Article
- LIFETIME JEM-DERIVED OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE BURDEN AND ODDS OF PARKINSON'S DISEASE AND PARKINSONISM IN A MATCHED CASE-CONTROL STUDY.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Occupational exposure to vapor, gas, dust and fume using job-exposure matrix in a population-based, nationwide study in Kazakhstan.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Kazakhstan in a Nationwide Population-Based Epidemiological Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Article
- Occupational Risk of COPD: Insights from a Large Cohort Study.Safety and health at work · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) are major public health concerns, with occupational exposure to vapors, gases, dusts, and fumes (VGDF) often overlooked as risk factors. This study investigates discrepancies between self-reported and Job-Exposure Matrix (JEM)-assessed exposures in chronic airway obstruction (AO), highlighting the importance of robust assessment methods. Data from the Hamburg City Health Study (2016-2020) were analyzed, contrasting self-reported VGDF exposure with Airborne Chemical Exposure (ACE) JEM assessments. COPD definition followed GOLD (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) and GLI (The Global Lung Function Initiative) criteria for an AO. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Cohen's Kappa. Logistic regression models analyzed VGDF-AO associations, adjusting for confounders. Among 4,811 participants assessed with GOLD criteria, 3,545 met GLI criteria; inter-rater reliability between self-reported and JEM-based exposure was modest (Kappa = 0.29). Awareness of exposure varied between skill levels. Self-reported VGDF exposure was associated with GLI-defined AO (OR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.11-1.96), but not with GOLD-defined AO. JEM assessments did not show an association for either criterion. Discrepancies exist between self-reported and JEM-assessed VGDF exposures, as well as between GOLD and GLI criteria. Enhanced assessment strategies are needed to accurately assess occupational health risks related to COPD.
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.