Workplace Exposures and the Development of New Onset Adult Asthma: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract RATIONALE: It is estimated that over 600 agents in the workplace can lead to asthma, and that approximately 16% of adult asthma may be work-related. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to identify work exposures and occupations for which there is epidemiological evidence of a causal association with new-onset adult asthma (NOAA). METHODS: All of MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and CINAHL were searched until March 2024. Full papers or reports that studied adult workers (or workplace exposures) in relation to NOAA (confirmed by objective testing with ≥3 cases), and reported a risk estimate were included. Studies were limited to cohort, case-control, and repeated cross-sectional designs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool. A narrative summary was conducted and, for exposures or occupations examined in ≥3 unique study populations, meta-effect estimates (mEE) with 95% CI were estimated using random effects models. RESULTS: In total, 8090 studies were identified for title and abstract screening. A total of 539 full text documents were reviewed, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were primarily European, population-based, case-control studies, and were published between 2000-2009. Meta-analyses (mEE, 95% CI) found evidence of a significant positive relationship between dusts/particles (1.89, 1.54-2.30), welding fumes/welders (1.92, 1.73-2.14), bakers (3.57, 1.76-7.28), painters (2.26, 1.34-3.80), hairdressers (1.65, 1.27-2.15), healthcare workers (1.27, 1.18-1.37), and construction workers (1.58, 1.44-1.74) and development of NOAA. The narrative review identified relationships between 24 additional occupations/exposures and NOAA, though there was inconsistent evidence of a dose-response relationship. All studies except for one, which was excluded from models, were rated as a low risk of possible bias. CONCLUSIONS: Results support a causal relationship between work as a welder, baker, painter, hairdresser, as well as work in healthcare and construction and exposure to particulates (unspecified) and the development of NOAA based on epidemiological evidence. The systematic review and meta-analyses relied on a strong case definition of NOAA, increasing certainty of the observed associations with NOAA. The restriction to case-control and longitudinal studies provided stronger evidence for causality but lead to the exclusion of evidence for several exposures/occupations that are known from clinical evidence to cause NOAA.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».