ReviewFrontiers in public health2025
Defining control reference ranges in biologic samples in analytical laboratories.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mineral analytic laboratories define control reference ranges to interpret the significance of an individual's prior exposures. Control reference ranges are internally compiled and defined for two scenarios: background controls-only subjects with ambient asbestos exposure and no increased risk of asbestos related disease, and asbestosis range controls, utilized for the diagnosis of asbestos-related lung fibrosis/asbestosis and for asbestos-related lung cancer causation. The objective of this study was to evaluate how different analytic laboratories have established their internal control reference ranges and to comment on their significance. The study comprised a review of the scientific literature generated from a Pubmed search of mineral analytic data from lung tissue in laboratories determining background exposures to asbestos and other elongate minerals. Twenty-six publications were found from 17 laboratories across Europe, North America, and Asia which had internally defined background control populations. The studies showed marked heterogeneity having been conducted over decades, using different criteria, different microscopic methodologies, and assessment of different fiber dimension. The most common criterion to define background control subjects was to establish individuals with no known occupational history of asbestos exposure and/or no evidence of asbestos-related diseases. In background controls with no disease, chrysotile was reported most frequently. Chrysotile and amphiboles were variably detected in lung tissue from control subjects in virtually all studies. Interlaboratory variations exist so individual results obtained in one laboratory do not transfer significance to another laboratory. The use of negative control groups in case-control studies is discussed alongside their relevance in ensuring the validity of results related to asbestos exposure and its diseases.
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.