SynthesisBMC public health2025
Comparative analysis of dermal and inhalation exposures to antineoplastic drugs among workers in the workplaces: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Occupational Reproductive Health Risks Among Women Healthcare Workers: A Narrative Review for Clinical Surveillance, Preconception Counseling, and Prevention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOccupational exposure to antineoplastic drugs presents significant health risks to workers, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of both dermal and inhalation exposures. This systematic review examines the relative significance of cutaneous versus inhalation exposure among professionals handling these potent medications. STUDY
designSystematic review.
methodsA systematic search using the PECO framework was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Data from surface and air sampling studies were collected and analyzed.
resultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria, assessing various antineoplastic drugs across different occupational settings. Surface contamination levels varied widely, with concentrations ranging from very low to high, whereas airborne monitoring consistently reported "Not Detectable" levels. Exposure levels were influenced by workplace practices, handling procedures, and the sensitivity of detection methods.
conclusionsThis systematic review of ten studies on dermal and inhalation exposure to antineoplastic drugs in various occupational settings reveals significant variability in contamination levels. Tailored safety measures, including stringent protocols, decontamination procedures, and respiratory protection, are essential for workplace safety. The review highlights the importance of standardized safety protocols, considering the impact of workplace practices and detection method sensitivity. Additionally, it underscores the health risks associated with even low-level exposure, emphasizing the need for biological monitoring. Despite some limitations, this study offers valuable insights for enhancing the safety of staffs handling these potent drugs, guiding future research and policy development.
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.