ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2022
A Clinician's Guide to Occupational Exposures in the Military.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical problems in military personnel associated with burn pit exposure: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure in battlefield and beyond: Implications for environmental- and human health.Toxicology reports · 2026Review
- The health and well-being of older Veterans in Canada: A scoping review.Journal of military, veteran and family health · 2026Article
- Impact of Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus Diving on French Military Divers' Lung Function: A Retrospective Cohort.CHEST pulmonary · 2025Article
- Combustion products of burn pit constituents induce more changes in asthmatic than non-asthmatic murine lungs.Particle and fibre toxicology · 2025Article
- Environmental and occupational risks to reproductive health in women service members and veterans.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Lung disease in relation to unique monocyte-macrophage subpopulations induced by combined inhalant endotoxin and collagen-induced arthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- An Assessment of the Ocular Toxicity of Two Major Sources of Environmental Exposure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Mesothelioma Risk Among Maritime Workers According to Job Title: Data From the Italian Mesothelioma Register (ReNaM).La Medicina del lavoro · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewAdverse occupational and environmental exposures are common causes of respiratory disease and health consequences requiring medical care. Understanding how these various exposures affect patients and how to elicit an adequate history is critical for any clinician. Military personnel are often overlooked when discussing groups at risk for environmental exposure-associated airway disease. There are close to 20 million active duty and veterans in the USA, and nearly all clinicians will at some point care for a patient that has served in the military. RECENT
findingsExposures related to military work include burn pits, chemicals/toxins, sandstorms, and living conditions. Burn pits and military waste are increasingly recognized as potential hazards attributed to the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The link between these various military exposures and acute or chronic airway diseases remains difficult. Epidemiological studies are emerging to demonstrate correlations with chronic lung disease and prolonged burn pit exposure. This review provides an overview of potential occupational and environmental exposures that may affect current and/or former military service men and women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.