ArticlePloS one2025
Occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and cognitive impairment: Protocol of a systematic review.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) has been associated with adverse health effects, yet evidence on the cognitive consequences of such exposure remains fragmented and has not been systematically synthesized across occupational groups. This protocol outlines a systematic review that will examine the relationship between occupational PAH exposure and cognitive impairment across eight predefined occupational categories. Relevant studies will be identified through electronic searches of major databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, ProQuest, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies must assess PAH exposure in occupational settings and evaluate cognitive outcomes using validated instruments, with domain-specific neuropsychological tests prioritized as primary outcomes and global screening tools (e.g., MoCA, MMSE) included as supportive outcomes. Both observational and comparative study designs will be considered. Titles and abstracts will be screened by two independent reviewers, and full texts of potentially eligible articles will be assessed using predefined criteria. Data will be synthesized narratively, with contingency meta-analysis conducted where sufficient comparable data are available and heterogeneity is acceptable. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be undertaken by occupational category, biomarker, cognitive domain, and exposure context, with meta-regression considered if an adequate number of studies are identified. Risk of bias will be assessed using JBI tools at the study level and ROBIS at the review level, with planned sensitivity analyses. The review will consolidate current evidence on PAH-related cognitive outcomes across occupational groups, including under-studied populations such as wildland firefighters, and will inform occupational health policy, workplace screening initiatives, and future research aimed at safeguarding cognitive health in exposed populations.
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.