Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9764108›Full record

ReviewOccupational and environmental medicine1998

Comprehensive evaluation of long-term trends in occupational exposure: Part 2. Predictive models for declining exposures.

E Symanski, L L Kupper, I Hertz-Picciotto, S M Rappaport

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Occupational and environmental medicine, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Cancer Incidence Among Hardmetal Production Workers: The Swedish Cohort.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Occupation and cancer in Britain.British journal of cancer · 2010
    Article
  9. Occupational exposure to n-hexane in Italy--analysis of a registry of biological monitoring.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2003
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

E SymanskiUniversity of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, School of Public Health 77030, USA.
L L Kupper
I Hertz-Picciotto
S M Rappaport

Funding

Biostatstics for Research in Environmental HealthT32ES007018 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Stephanie Engel, Rebecca Fry · 1985 to 2026
$31.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32ES07018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the effects of various factors related to the industry, the contaminant, and the period and type of sampling on long term declining trends in occupational exposure.

methodsLinear regression analyses were used to assess the relation between reductions in exposure and geographical location, industrial sector, type of contaminant, type of monitoring, carcinogenic classification, calendar period, duration of sampling, and number of reductions in the threshold limit value during the sampling period. Both univariable and multivariable models were applied.

resultsBased on univariable analyses, the findings suggest that exposures declined more rapidly in manufacturing than in mining, more rapidly for aerosol contaminants than for vapours, and more rapidly when biological, rather than airborne, monitoring was conducted. Exposures collected more recently (first year of sampling in 1972 or later) fell more rapidly than exposures first evaluated during earlier periods. Irrespective of when the data were collected, the results also suggest that the longer the duration of sampling the slower the rate of decline. Taken together, we found that characteristics related to the contaminant, the industry, the sampling period, and the type of sampling explained a substantial proportion of the variability for exposures evaluated before 1972 (R2 = 0.78) and for sites evaluated both before and after 1972 (R2 = 0.91), but explained essentially no variation for data gathered exclusively after 1972 (R2 = 0.04).

conclusionsBy identifying factors that have affected the rates of reduction in a consistent fashion, the results should guide investigators in estimating historical levels when studies assessing exposure-response relations are carried out.

Indexed as

IndustryAnalysis of VarianceEuropeHumansInhalation ExposureJapanLinear ModelsManufactured MaterialsMetallurgyMiningNorth AmericaOccupational ExposureTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID9764108
PMCPMC1757586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.