ArticleEJIFCC2026
Lead Toxicity Testing in the Asia-Pacific - Practices, Challenges, and Policy Insights: An APFCB Communication and Publications Committee Survey report.
Article in EJIFCC, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lead exposure remains a major health concern in the Asia-Pacific, particularly affecting children. Despite its significance, lead toxicity testing is underutilized because of limited awareness, resources, and policy support. On December 16, 2024, the APFCB C-CP (Asia-Pacific Federation for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine -Communication and Publications Committee) conducted Webcast & eLearning Program Webinar themed as "Protecting Health in Asia-Pacific: Laboratory Advances and Lead Exposure Prevention", aimed to address these issues and acknowledge need based solutions. An online survey was conducted during webinar in real time to assess the current lead-testing practices, common exposure sources, testing challenges, and policy changes. Methods: A seven-question survey was distributed to webinar participants, covering testing frequency, methodologies, exposure sources, information sources, challenges, and policy needs. A total of 66 professionals attended the session and 22 complete surveys were collected from Nepal, India, Indonesia, Japan, and Australia. Results: Lead testing was infrequent in the region, with 58.6% of the respondents reporting rare or no testing. Weekly testing has been reported in 20.7% of cases. The most commonly used methodology was point-of-care testing via anodic stripping voltammetry (37.5%) followed by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (25%). Occupational exposure (39.1%) was the leading source of lead poisoning, followed by dietary sources (26.1%) and environmental contamination (21.7%). Academic journals (47.5%) were the primary educational resources. Key challenges included low awareness among healthcare providers (43.5%) and resource shortage (39.1%). The most recommended policy change was to increase government support (61.5%). Conclusion: In conclusion, lead testing remains infrequent across many settings, with limited routine implementation and heavy reliance on point-of-care methodologies. Occupational exposure emerged as the predominant source of lead poisoning, underscoring the need for targeted interventions. Strengthening government support is identified as the most critical policy change to enhance lead testing and management efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41659289PMC12882087What 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.