Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38466914›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2024

Methods to assess dermal exposures in occupational settings: a scoping review.

Jennifer H Therkorn, Brittany A Mathewson, Christopher J Laursen, Silvia Maberti, Vitaly Aizenberg, Brian T Dinkelacker, Saumitra Rege

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jennifer H TherkornExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., 1545 U.S. Highway 22 East, Annandale, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7742-9938
Brittany A MathewsonExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., 1545 U.S. Highway 22 East, Annandale, NJ, United States.
Christopher J LaursenExxonMobil Technology & Engineering, 22777 Springwoods Village Parkway, Spring, TX, United States.
Silvia MabertiExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., 1545 U.S. Highway 22 East, Annandale, NJ, United States.
Vitaly AizenbergExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., 1545 U.S. Highway 22 East, Annandale, NJ, United States.
Brian T DinkelackerExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., 1545 U.S. Highway 22 East, Annandale, NJ, United States.
Saumitra RegeExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc., 1545 U.S. Highway 22 East, Annandale, NJ, United States.
ExxonMobil (United States) · US

Funding

ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe dermal exposure route is expected to become increasingly significant relative to total worker exposure as inhalational exposure limits continue to decrease. However, standardization of occupational exposure assessment methods and scientific consensus are needed. This is the first scoping review mapping the literature across all dermal exposure assessment methods and their targeted substances/chemicals in occupational settings.

methodsEligibility criteria broadly included studies reporting any noninvasive dermal exposure assessment method in an occupational setting. The literature search (Web of Science and MEDLINE) was restricted to peer-reviewed, primary literature published in the last 20 years (2002-2022). Titles/abstracts were dual independently screened. Data charting was performed by a single reviewer using standard template. All stages were pilot tested. The JBI (formerly, the Joanna Briggs Institute) scoping review methods and PRISMA-ScR checklist (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) were used.

resultsIn total, 493 articles were data charted and categorized by 4 study types: methods development (22%), exposure assessment (51%), health outcomes (21%), and controls assessment (6%). Fourteen types of dermal exposure assessment methods were charted with biomarkers (51%), dosimeters (21%), and qualitative assessments such as questionnaires or surveys (17%) most common. Seventeen different chemicals/substances were charted; pesticides (28%) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (22%) associated with crude oil products and combustion were most common. Mapping between substances and exposure assessment method categories, pesticide dosimeters (11%), and PAH biomarker studies (14%) were most reported. Literature gaps were identified for cleaning agents, hair dyes, glycol ether, N,N-dimethylformamide/N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, dioxins, and bisphenol A.

conclusionsTo foster scientific consensus, standardization across study reporting is needed for describing: (i) exposure assessment methods used, (ii) worker tasking/conditions, (iii) targeted substances and substance state, and (iv) targeted exposure routes. Overall, this review categorizes, maps, and defines the scope of literature for occupational dermal exposure assessment methods.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureAir Pollutants, OccupationalEnvironmental MonitoringHumansSkinAir Pollutants, Occupationalexposureindustrial healthmethodological studyoccupational healthoccupational safetyrisk assessmentskinstandardizationworkersworkplace

Identifiers

PMID38466914
PMCPMC11033572
OpenAlexW4392638357

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.