↓ Skip to main content

A case-case study on sinonasal cancer prevention: effect from dust reduction in woodworking and risk of mastic/solvents in shoemaking

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A case-case study on sinonasal cancer prevention: effect from dust reduction in woodworking and risk of mastic/solvents in shoemaking
Published in
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12995-016-0124-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Enzo Emanuelli, Enrico Alexandre, Diego Cazzador, Vera Comiati, Tiziana Volo, Alessia Zanon, Maria Luisa Scapellato, Mariella Carrieri, Alessandro Martini, Giuseppe Mastrangelo

Abstract

Sinonasal cancers (SNCs) are rare neoplasms, accounting for about 3 % of head and neck cancers, with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (ADC) as the most common subtypes. ADCs present strong associations with occupational wood dust exposure. Preventive measures have progressively reduced wood dust concentrations in workplaces but no study has evaluated the effectiveness of such interventions. Few studies indicate associations between ADC and exposure to solvents, which is common in the shoe industry, but this hypothesis still needs confirmation. In a case-case study, we contrasted 32 ADCs against 21 Non-Adenocarcinoma Epithelial Tumors (NAETs) - all recruited from the same clinical setting (Padua's University Hospital; period 2004-2015) - using questionnaires and clinical records to collect information on potential predictors. Non-occupational factors were age, sex, smoking, allergy and chronic sinusitis. Occupational factors were intensity and frequency of wood dust exposure, protection from wood dust, type of wood (in woodworking); frequency of exposure to leather dust or mastic/solvent (in shoemaking). Odds-ratio (OR), 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) and two-tail p-values were obtained through stepwise backward logistic regression for each industry, always using as reference patients never employed in either trade and adjusting for non-occupational risk factors. Adjusted OR was 22.5 (95 % CI = 3.50-144; p = 0.001) and 9.37 (95 % CI = 1.29-67.6; p = 0.026), respectively, in patients with low or high degree of protection against wood dust. In the shoe industry, adjusted OR was 1 and 18.8 (95 % CI = 1.29-174; p = 0.030), respectively, in patients with low or high exposure to only mastic/solvent; and 1 and 22.5 (95 % CI = 2.07-244; p = 0.011), respectively, in patients with low or high exposure to only leather dust. The questionnaire used was able to estimate with simple algorithms past exposures in wood and footwear industries. The case-case design considerably increased the validity of this small study. Results in this study were always consistent with the extant literature; this could support reliability of novel findings. In woodworking, respiratory protective equipment and local exhaust ventilation reduced the risk of occupational SNC; in footwear manufacture, where preventive interventions were seldom adopted, SNC risk was significantly greater for high exposure from mastic/solvent and leather dust.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Other 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Environmental Science 6 13%
Engineering 5 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#19,584,440
of 24,086,561 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#283
of 406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,560
of 371,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,086,561 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.