Cited by 85Occupational exposure and asthmaAsthma and respiratory diseasesIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure

Asthma and rhinitis in cleaning workers: a systematic review of epidemiological studies

Open access
Folletti, Ilenia, Zock, Jan-Paul, Moscato, Gianna, Siracusa, Andrea·2014·Journal of Asthma

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of epidemiological studies linking cleaning work and risk of asthma and rhinitis. METHODS: Published reports were identified from PubMed covering the years from 1976 through June 30, 2012. In total, we identified 24 papers for inclusion in the review. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement checklist of 22 items for cross-sectional, cohort and case-control studies. RESULTS: Increased risk of asthma or rhinitis has been shown in 79% of included epidemiological studies. In four studies the increased risk of asthma in cleaning workers was confirmed by objective tests, such as bronchial hyper-reactivity or airflow obstruction. Level of exposure to cleaning products, cleaning sprays, bleach, ammonia, mixing products and specific job tasks has been identified as specific causes of asthma and rhinitis. CONCLUSIONS: Possible preventive measures encompass the substitution of cleaning sprays, bleach and ammonia, avoidance of mixing products, the use of respiratory protective devices, worker education and medical surveillance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/02770903.2013.833217

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Folletti, I., Zock, J.-P., Moscato, G., & Siracusa, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Perugia (IT)
  • Center for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (ES)
  • Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri (IT)
Corresponding author
Folletti, Ilenia
Venue
Journal of Asthma
Published
2013-09-18
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
18-28
ISSN
  • 0277-0903 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-4303
OpenAlex
W1978779875
Cited by
85
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4
FWCI
0.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Asthma (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational exposure and asthma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Keywords
asthma, rhinitis, cleaning workers, occupational asthma, occupational rhinitis, cleaning agents, bleach, ammonia, airway hyperresponsiveness, airflow obstruction, respiratory protective equipment, occupational exposure, medical surveillance
MeSH terms
Asthma, Detergents, Humans, Occupational Diseases, Rhinitis, Epidemiologic Studies, Occupational Exposure

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