CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Occupational exposure and asthmaAsthma and respiratory diseasesOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

A workers' compensation claim population for occupational asthma

Tarlo, Susan M., Corey, Paul, Broder, Irvin, Liss, Gary·1995·Chest
DOI 10.1378/chest.107.3.634
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Study objective (1) To compare patients with claims submitted to the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) for occupational asthma, in relation to the WCB decisions reached of occupational asthma (OA); aggravation of asthma from irritant exposures (AA); unrelated asthma; no asthma; and (2) to assess determinants of outcome of WCB accepted claims at permanent disability assessments.Design A retrospective review of 609 claims submitted to the WCB 1984 to 1988.Results The WCB decision reached was OA in 39% of claims, mostly attributed to isocyanates (57% of these). A further 39% were accepted for AA. Exposure to a known sensitizer occurred in 91% with OA and to an irritant in 67% with AA. Forty percent with AA were attributed to a spill or accidental exposure and 68% had preceding asthma. Those with AA were more likely to have clearing of symptoms by the time of their main assessment (43% vs 20% with OA) and were more likely to have remained in the same work (35% vs 20% with OA). Of 200 OA accepted claims reviewed at a mean of 1.9 years later, clearing of asthma occurred in 19% and milder asthma in 47%. Outcome was best with early diagnosis (p < 0.05), and milder impairment of pulmonary function at initial assessment (p < 0.05).Conclusions Patients with asthma induced by a workplace sensitizer demonstrate some differences from those related to workplace irritants. Accurate categorization and early removal of those with OA offers the best prognosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1378/chest.107.3.634

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Among compensation claims, confirmed OA diagnoses most have a causative sensitizing agent identified.

    “Among compensation claims, confirmed OA diagnoses most have a causative sensitizing agent identified (143).”

    From Epidemiology of Asthma in Children and Adults (2019) · cites this paper as [143]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tarlo, S. M., Corey, P., Broder, I., & Liss, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Ontario Ministry of Labour (CA)
ORCID
Tarlo, Susan M.
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-03
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
634-641
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1378/chest.107.3.634
OpenAlex
W2025195345
Cited by
117
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 1
FWCI
5.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, workers' compensation claims, isocyanates, irritant exposure, asthma outcomes, early diagnosis, respiratory dysfunction
MeSH terms
Adult, Asthma, Female, Humans, Irritants, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Diseases, Ontario, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Workers' Compensation

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