Cited by 87Occupational exposure and asthmaAsthma and respiratory diseasesOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

Diagnosing occupational asthma

Open access
Vandenplas, O., Suojalehto, H., Cullinan, P.·2017·Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Abstract

Making an accurate diagnosis of occupational asthma (OA) is, generally, important. The condition has not only significant health consequences for affected workers, but also substantial socio-economic impacts for workers, their employers and wider society. Missing a diagnosis of OA may lead to continued exposure to a causative agent and progressive worsening of disease; conversely, diagnosing OA when it is not present may lead to inappropriate removal from exposure and unnecessary financial and social consequences. While the most accurate investigation is specific inhalation challenge in an experienced centre, this is a scarce resource, and in many cases, reliance is on other tests. This review provides a technical dossier of the diagnostic value of the available methods which include an appropriate clinical history, the use of specific immunology and measurement of inflammatory markers, and various methods of relating functional changes in airway calibre to periods at work. It is recommended that these approaches are used iteratively and in judicious combination, in cognizance of the individual patient's circumstances and requirements. Based on available evidence, a working diagnostic algorithm is proposed that can be adapted to the suspected agent, purpose of diagnosis and available resources. For better or worse, many of the techniques - and their interpretation - are available only in specialized centres and where there is room for doubt, referral to such a centre is probably wise. Accordingly, the implementation or development of such specialized centres with appropriate equipment and expertise should greatly improve the diagnostic evaluation of work-related asthma.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/cea.12858

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Objective evidence of poorer asthma control is often difficult to demonstrate.

    “To contrast, work-related exacerbations can occur frequently in 20–25% of working adults who have pre-existing asthma (147), although objective evidence of poorer asthma control is often difficult to demonstrate (140).”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [140]

  • OA is typically subclassified into IgE-mediated or sensitizer-induced OA (90%) and irritant-induced occupational asthma (10%).

    “OA is typically subclassified into immunoglobulin (Ig)-E-mediated or sensitizer-induced OA (90%) and irritant-induced occupational asthma (10%) (140).”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [140]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nicholson P, Cullinan P, Burge P, Boyle C. Occupational asthma: preven- tion, identification & management: sys- tematic review & recommendations. London: British Occupational Health Research Foundation, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vandenplas, O., Suojalehto, H., & Cullinan, P.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FI)
  • Royal Brompton Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Vandenplas, O.
Venue
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-12-27
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
6-18
ISSN
  • 0954-7894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2222
OpenAlex
W2550811817
Cited by
87
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical & Experimental Allergy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fondation Louvain
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational exposure and asthma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
occupational asthma, diagnosis, specific inhalation challenge, inflammatory markers, medical history, airway function, diagnostic algorithm, work-related asthma, exposure assessment
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Diagnostic Techniques, Respiratory System, Humans, Occupational Diseases, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Occupational Exposure, Asthma, Occupational

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review