-
The Lancet. Respiratory Medicine May 2022Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an increasingly important cause of morbidity, disability, and mortality worldwide. We aimed to estimate global, regional,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an increasingly important cause of morbidity, disability, and mortality worldwide. We aimed to estimate global, regional, and national COPD prevalence and risk factors to guide policy and population interventions.
METHODS
For this systematic review and modelling study, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and CINAHL, for population-based studies on COPD prevalence published between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2019. We included data reported using the two main case definitions: the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease fixed ratio (GOLD; FEV/FVC<0·7) and the lower limit of normal (LLN; FEV/FVC
FINDINGS
We identified 162 articles reporting population-based studies conducted across 260 sites in 65 countries. In 2019, the global prevalence of COPD among people aged 30-79 years was 10·3% (95% CI 8·2-12·8) using the GOLD case definition, which translates to 391·9 million people (95% CI 312·6-487·9), and 7·6% (5·8-10·1) using the LLN definition, which translates to 292·0 million people (219·8-385·6). Using the GOLD definition, we estimated that 391·9 million (95% CI 312·6-487·9) people aged 30-79 years had COPD worldwide in 2019, with most (315·5 million [246·7-399·6]; 80·5%) living in LMICs. The overall prevalence of GOLD-COPD among people aged 30-79 years was the highest in the Western Pacific region (11·7% [95% CI 9·3-14·6]) and lowest in the region of the Americas (6·8% [95% CI 5·6-8·2]). Globally, male sex (OR 2·1 [95% CI 1·8-2·3]), smoking (current smoker 3·2 [2·5-4·0]; ever smoker 2·3 [2·0-2·5]), body-mass index of less than 18·5 kg/m (2·2 [1·7-2·7]), biomass exposure (1·4 [1·2-1·7]), and occupational exposure to dust or smoke (1·4 [1·3-1·6]) were all substantial risk factors for COPD.
INTERPRETATION
With more than three-quarters of global COPD cases in LMICs, tackling this chronic condition is a major and increasing challenge for health systems in these settings. In the absence of targeted population-wide efforts and health system reforms in these settings, many of which are under-resourced, achieving a substantial reduction in the burden of COPD globally might remain a difficult task.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research and Health Data Research UK.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Female; Global Health; Humans; Male; Prevalence; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35279265
DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00511-7 -
European Respiratory Review : An... Jun 2023COPD and adult-onset asthma (AOA) are the most common noncommunicable respiratory diseases. To improve early identification and prevention, an overview of risk factors... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
COPD and adult-onset asthma (AOA) are the most common noncommunicable respiratory diseases. To improve early identification and prevention, an overview of risk factors is needed. We therefore aimed to systematically summarise the nongenetic (exposome) risk factors for AOA and COPD. Additionally, we aimed to compare the risk factors for COPD and AOA.
METHODS
In this umbrella review, we searched PubMed for articles from inception until 1 February 2023 and screened the references of relevant articles. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational epidemiological studies in humans that assessed a minimum of one lifestyle or environmental risk factor for AOA or COPD.
RESULTS
In total, 75 reviews were included, of which 45 focused on risk factors for COPD, 28 on AOA and two examined both. For asthma, 43 different risk factors were identified while 45 were identified for COPD. For AOA, smoking, a high body mass index (BMI), wood dust exposure and residential chemical exposures, such as formaldehyde exposure or exposure to volatile organic compounds, were amongst the risk factors found. For COPD, smoking, ambient air pollution including nitrogen dioxide, a low BMI, indoor biomass burning, childhood asthma, occupational dust exposure and diet were amongst the risk factors found.
CONCLUSIONS
Many different factors for COPD and asthma have been found, highlighting the differences and similarities. The results of this systematic review can be used to target and identify people at high risk for COPD or AOA.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Child; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Asthma; Risk Factors; Air Pollution; Dust; Environmental Exposure
PubMed: 37137510
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0009-2023 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jan 2023Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD.
METHODS
As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.
CONCLUSIONS
SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Humans; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Quality of Life; Bayes Theorem; Desensitization, Immunologic; Pyroglyphidae; Hypersensitivity; Asthma; Allergens; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Eczema
PubMed: 36191689
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.09.020 -
Pulmonology Jun 2023Silicosis mostly happens in workers with high silica exposure and may accompany the development of various diseases like tuberculosis, cancer, or autoimmune diseases.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Silicosis mostly happens in workers with high silica exposure and may accompany the development of various diseases like tuberculosis, cancer, or autoimmune diseases. The term silico-tuberculosis describes a condition in which an individual is affected by both silicosis and tuberculosis at the same time. This systematic review and meta-analysis study was conducted to evaluate the risk of tuberculosis in silicosis patients and individuals exposed to silica dust.
METHODS
We performed a systematic search for relevant studies up to 6 September 2022 using PubMed/ Medline, and Embase with the following keywords in titles or abstracts: "silicosis" OR "silicoses" OR "pneumoconiosis" OR "pneumoconioses" AND "tuberculosis". Cohort and case-control studies containing relevant and original information about tuberculosis infection in silicosis patients were included for further analysis. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relative risk of tuberculosis in individuals with silicosis compared to those without; these were evaluated using the random effects model due to the estimated heterogeneity of the true effect sizes.
RESULTS
Out of 5352 potentially relevant articles, 7 studies were eligible for systematic review, of which 4 cohort studies were included for meta-analysis. The total population of all studies was 5884, and 90.63% were male. The mean age of participants was 47.7 years. Our meta-analysis revealed a pooled risk ratio of 1.35 (95%CI 1.18-1.53, I : 94.30%) which means an increased risk of silicosis patients and silica-exposed individuals to tuberculosis infection.
CONCLUSION
Silicosis and silica dust exposure increase the risk of tuberculosis. Therefore, we suggest that individuals with long-time silica exposure, like mine workers, be routinely considered for both silicosis and tuberculosis screening programs.
PubMed: 37349198
DOI: 10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.05.001 -
BMC Urology Jul 2023Comparing stone-free rates and associated outcome measures between two surgical modalities of lithotripsy fragmentation and removal or spontaneous passage of dust during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Comparing stone-free rates and associated outcome measures between two surgical modalities of lithotripsy fragmentation and removal or spontaneous passage of dust during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).
METHODS
In March 2023, we conducted a literature search in several widely used databases worldwide, including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. We only considered English articles and excluded pediatric patients. Reviews and protocols without any published data were excluded. We also excluded articles with conference abstracts and irrelevant content. We used the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models to assess inverse variances and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for mean differences in categorical variables. The results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
Our final meta-analysis included nine articles, comprising two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven cohort studies. The total number of patients included in these studies was 1326, and all studies used holmium laser lithotripsy. The pooled analysis of the dust and fragmentation groups showed that the fragmentation group had a higher stone-free rate (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.41 - 0.89; p = 0.01); the dust group had a shorter operative time (WMD - 11.6 min; 95% CI - 19.56 - -3.63; p = 0.004); and the dust group had a higher retreatment rate (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.31 - 3.13; p = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay, overall complications, or postoperative fever.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed that both procedures could be safely and effectively used for upper ureteral and renal calculi lithotripsy, the dust group had potential advantages over the fragmentation group in terms of the operation time, and the fragmentation group had certain advantages in terms of stone-free rate and retreatment rate.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Calculi; Kidney; Lithotripsy; Lithotripsy, Laser; Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37420203
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-023-01283-w -
Environmental Science and Pollution... Apr 2023The recent increase in silicosis cases in several countries casts doubt on dust control practices and their effectiveness in preventing respirable crystalline silica... (Review)
Review
The recent increase in silicosis cases in several countries casts doubt on dust control practices and their effectiveness in preventing respirable crystalline silica (RCS) exposure. Apart from silicosis, RCS may lead to other illnesses, health-related quality of life losses for workers and their families, and economic losses for companies. Thus, this systematic literature review examined the effectiveness of interventions employed to prevent exposure to RCS and increase the use of dust control measures. The review used keywords related to dust control interventions to search seven databases. Search results were screened and extracted for synthesis. The narrative synthesis showed the extent of research investment in China. In several designs and combinations, the interventions utilized water, surfactant, foam, and air currents to reduce dust exposure. These interventions offer varying degrees of dust control effectiveness against RCS and respirable dust. Although evidence indicates that interventions significantly decrease dust concentration levels, the control measures in place may not effectively prevent workplace overexposure to RCS. The review found that education and training interventions are employed to improve dust controls and respiratory protective equipment (RPE) use. Also, marketing strategies promote the use of RPE. These interventions can increase the frequency of use of RPE and the adoption of best practice dust control measures. Interventions increase knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about RPE usage and generate positive perceptions while reducing misconceptions. However, the benefits obtained from an intervention may diminish after its implementation, indicating that the interventions may not continually motivate workers to adopt control measures or use RPE.
Topics: Humans; Dust; Air Pollutants, Occupational; Quality of Life; Silicon Dioxide; Inhalation Exposure; Occupational Exposure; Workplace; Silicosis
PubMed: 36964805
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-023-26321-w -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment.
METHODS
A literature search was performed on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sublingual immunotherapy for AR were screened and extracted from the establishment of those databases to November 2022. Subsequently, a network meta-analysis was performed using a statistical software R 4.2.
RESULTS
Totally 22 RCTs that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and screened from 1,164 literature were included. A total of 4,941 AR patients were involved in the 22 trials, as well as five interventions including placebo, pharmacotherapy, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, and sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract. The results of network meta-analysis showed that, based on symptom scores after different interventions for AR, the most effective treatments for AR were in order as follows: sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract, placebo, and pharmacotherapy. Importantly, sublingual immunotherapy had fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.
CONCLUSION
Sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite for AR has the best efficacy, whereas traditional medicine has the worst. More high-quality studies with a large sample and multiple centers are needed to verify this conclusion in the future, so as to further provide more reliable evidence-based medical evidence for the clinical treatment options of AR patients.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Rhinitis, Allergic; Pyroglyphidae; Plant Extracts
PubMed: 37063866
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1144816 -
BMJ Open Mar 2023To determine the incidence of pneumoconiosis worldwide and its influencing factors. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To determine the incidence of pneumoconiosis worldwide and its influencing factors.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Cohort studies on occupational pneumoconiosis.
PARTICIPANTS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched until November 2021. Studies were selected for meta-analysis if they involved at least one variable investigated as an influencing factor for the incidence of pneumoconiosis and reported either the parameters and 95% CIs of the risk fit to the data, or sufficient information to allow for the calculation of those values.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES
The pooled incidence of pneumoconiosis and risk ratio (RR) and 95% CIs of influencing factors.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis included 19 studies with a total of 335 424 participants, of whom 29 972 developed pneumoconiosis. The pooled incidence of pneumoconiosis was 0.093 (95% CI 0.085 to 0.135). We identified the following influencing factors: (1) male (RR 3.74; 95% CI 1.31 to 10.64; p=0.01), (2) smoking (RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.43; p=0.0001), (3) tunnelling category (RR 4.75; 95% CI 1.96 to 11.53; p<0.0001), (4) helping category (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.16; p<0.0001), (5) age (the highest incidence occurs between the ages of 50 and 60), (6) duration of dust exposure (RR 4.59, 95% CI 2.41 to 8.74, p<0.01) and (7) cumulative total dust exposure (CTD) (RR 34.14, 95% CI 17.50 to 66.63, p<0.01). A dose-response analysis revealed a significant positive linear dose-response association between the risk of pneumoconiosis and duration of exposure and CTD (P-non-linearity=0.10, P-non-linearity=0.16; respectively). The Pearson correlation analysis revealed that silicosis incidence was highly correlated with cumulative silica exposure (r=0.794, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
The incidence of pneumoconiosis in occupational workers was 0.093 and seven factors were found to be associated with the incidence, providing some insight into the prevention of pneumoconiosis.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022323233.
Topics: Male; Humans; Middle Aged; Incidence; Pneumoconiosis; Dust; Odds Ratio; PubMed
PubMed: 36858466
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065114 -
Environmental Health Insights 2021Dust storms and their impacts on health are becoming a major public health issue. The current study examines the health impacts of dust storms around the world to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dust storms and their impacts on health are becoming a major public health issue. The current study examines the health impacts of dust storms around the world to provide an overview of this issue.
METHOD
In this systematic review, 140 relevant and authoritative English articles on the impacts of dust storms on health (up to September 2019) were identified and extracted from 28 968 articles using valid keywords from various databases (PubMed, WOS, EMBASE, and Scopus) and multiple screening steps. Selected papers were then qualitatively examined and evaluated. Evaluation results were summarized using an Extraction Table.
RESULTS
The results of the study are divided into two parts: short and long-term impacts of dust storms. Short-term impacts include mortality, visitation, emergency medical dispatch, hospitalization, increased symptoms, and decreased pulmonary function. Long-term impacts include pregnancy, cognitive difficulties, and birth problems. Additionally, this study shows that dust storms have devastating impacts on health, affecting cardiovascular and respiratory health in particular.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study show that dust storms have significant public health impacts. More attention should be paid to these natural hazards to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate these hazardous events to reduce their negative health impacts.Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018093325.
PubMed: 34103932
DOI: 10.1177/11786302211018390 -
Environment International Aug 2023The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers.
DATA SOURCES
We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
RESULTS
Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Occupational Diseases; Dust; Prevalence; Silicon Dioxide; Cross-Sectional Studies; Coal; Steam; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure; World Health Organization; Cost of Illness
PubMed: 37487377
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107980