The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prevalence of occupational asthma due to latex among hospital personnel.
Abstract
Latex has been documented as causing immediate hypersensitivity reactions ranging from contact urticaria to severe anaphylaxis. Latex proteins may also act as airborne allergens causing rhinitis and asthma. The prevalence of occupational asthma due to latex gloves among health care workers is unknown. We surveyed the employees of a primary care hospital including nurses (n = 201), members of the cleaning staff (n = 50), and laboratory technologists (n = 38). In the initial part of the study, a questionnaire and skin-prick tests with latex and common inhalant allergens were administered to 273 of 289 (94%) members of the target population. Thirteen of the 273 subjects (4.7%; 95% CI: 2.6 to 8.1%) showed skin reactivity to latex. All latex-sensitive subjects reported glove-related urticaria, which was associated with rhinoconjunctivitis in 12 subjects and asthma in five subjects. No subject had a history suggestive of occupational asthma among those who had negative skin tests to latex. In the second part of the study, a histamine inhalation challenge was performed on 12 of 13 latex-sensitive subjects, including the five subjects with a history of occupational asthma. These 12 subjects demonstrated significant bronchial hyperresponsiveness. All underwent specific inhalation challenges with latex gloves in the laboratory. Seven subjects developed a significant bronchial response (four immediate and three dual reactions) to latex glove exposure. We conclude that occupational asthma due to latex occurred in 2.5% (95% CI: 1.0 to 5.2%) of hospital employees. Widespread use of latex gloves should therefore be considered a significant risk to the respiratory health of hospital employees.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Kogevinas, M., Zock, J.-P., Jarvis, D., Kromhout, H., Lillienberg, L., Plana, E., Radon, K., Torén, K., Alliksoo, A., Benke, G., et al. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61164-7 · Cited by 411
Evidence based guidelines for the prevention, identification, and management of occupational asthma
Nicholson, P. J., Cullinan, P., Newman Taylor, A. J., Burge, P. S., & Boyle, C. (2005) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oem.2004.016287 · Cited by 320
Epidemiology of occupational rhinitis: prevalence, aetiology and determinants: REVIEW
Siracusa, A., Desrosiers, M., & Marabini, A. (2000) · Clinical & Experimental Allergy · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2222.2000.00946.x · Cited by 154
Agents causing occupational asthma
Malo, J.-L., & Chan-Yeung, M. (2009) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2008.09.010 · Cited by 145
Metadata
- Authors
- Vandenplas, O., Delwiche, J. P., Evrard, G., Aimont, P., van der Brempt, X., Jamart, J., & Delaunois, L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 151
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 54-60
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W2150005789
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of occupational asthma due to latex among hospital personnel. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.151.1.7812572
- The paper
- Vandenplas, O., Delwiche, J. P., Evrard, G., Aimont, P., van der Brempt, X., Jamart, J., & Delaunois, L. (1995). Prevalence of occupational asthma due to latex among hospital personnel. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.151.1.7812572
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.