2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Occupational and environmental risk factors of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a systematic review and meta-analyses

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a chronic, progressive, fibrosing interstitial lung disease of unknown cause. It has a high risk of rapid progression and mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the risk factor of IPF. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library from the earliest record to March, 2020. Case–control studies on occupational and environmental risk factors or on jobs with a risk of IPF were searched for. From 2490 relevant records, 12 studies were included. Any occupational or environmental exposure to metal dust (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.15–2.91, I 2 = 54%), wood dust (OR 1.62 5% CI 1.04–2.53, I 2 = 5%) and pesticide (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.24–3.45, I 2 = 0%) were associated with an increased risk of IPF. Farming or agricultural work (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.17–3.04, I 2 = 67%) was also associated with an increased risk of IPF. Moreover, smoking increased IPF risk with an odds ratio of 1.39 (95% CI 1.01–1.91, I 2 = 29%). In conclusion, metal dust, wood dust, pesticide, occupational history of farming or agriculture and ever smoking increased the risk of IPF.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Statement: Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Evidence-based Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management

            American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 183(6), 788-824
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. An Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline

              This document provides clinical recommendations for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). It represents a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Latin American Thoracic Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                drterry@hanyang.ac.kr
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                2 March 2021
                2 March 2021
                2021
                : 11
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
                [2 ]GRID grid.254224.7, ISNI 0000 0001 0789 9563, Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, , Chung-Ang University, ; Seoul, South Korea
                [3 ]GRID grid.412145.7, ISNI 0000 0004 0647 3212, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, , Hanyang University Guri Hospital, ; 153, Gyeongchun-ro, Guri-si, Gyeonggi-do 11923 South Korea
                Article
                81591
                10.1038/s41598-021-81591-z
                7925580
                33654111
                8e31b5af-13c1-4bba-9daf-486c8e5f8e88
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author (s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Uncategorized
                environmental sciences,environmental social sciences,health occupations
                Uncategorized
                environmental sciences, environmental social sciences, health occupations

                Comments

                Comment on this article