ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2026
Exposure-response relation for vibration-induced white finger: influence of different estimates of daily exposure time.
Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is analyzed whether differences in how the daily usage time is determined in a population exposed to hand-transmitted vibration are the cause of discrepancies between exposure-response models constructed for vibration-induced white finger (VWF). The predictions of the models are then used to evaluate the one in ISO 5349-1:2001.
methodsPooled analyses employing data from epidemiologic studies of vibration-exposed occupations deemed the most reliable, together with published ratios between daily tool or machine usage times determined by questionnaire or interview and measured values, are used to construct exposure-response relations. These models are compared to those in which the daily usage time is not compensated.
resultsOf 17 data points, for 7 the usage time ratio is greater than 1, and for the rest the ratio is equal to 1. Adjusting daily vibration exposures, expressed as A(8)-values, by means of such ratios, results in reductions of varying magnitude. However, the exposure-response models show minor changes, and the scatter in the data points previously observed remains.
conclusionsMethods for estimating 10% prevalence of VWF from the prevalence recorded in a population study are found to have more effect on the models than different methods for estimating the daily usage time. Yet, the spread and clustering in the data remain and point to issues in the constituents of the A(8)-value. The ISO relation is generally consistent with the lower 95-percentile confidence limit of the models and so provides a conservative exposure limit at least for A(8)-values greater than about 3 [Formula: see text].
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.