IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0255617.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review and meta-analysis on international studies of prevalence, mortality and survival due to coal mine dust lung disease

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia Lu
  • Paramita Dasgupta
  • Jessica Cameron
  • Lin Fritschi
  • Peter Baade

Abstract

Background: Coal mine dust lung disease comprises a group of occupational lung diseases including coal workers pneumoconiosis. In many countries, there is a lack of robust prevalence estimates for these diseases. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published contemporary estimates on prevalence, mortality, and survival for coal mine dust lung disease worldwide. Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for English language peer-reviewed articles published from 1/1/2000 to 30/03/2021 that presented quantitative estimates of prevalence, mortality, or survival for coal mine dust lung disease. Review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. Articles were screened independently by two authors. Studies were critically assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Pooled prevalence estimates were obtained using random effects meta-analysis models. Heterogeneity was measured using the I2 statistics and publication bias using Egger’s tests. Results: Overall 40 studies were included, (31 prevalence, 8 mortality, 1 survival). Of the prevalence estimates, fifteen (12 from the United States) were retained for the meta-analysis. The overall pooled prevalence estimate for coal workers pneumoconiosis among underground miners was 3.7% (95% CI 3.0–4.5%) with high heterogeneity between studies. The pooled estimate of coal workers pneumoconiosis prevalence in the United States was higher in the 2000s than in the 1990s, consistent with published reports of increasing prevalence following decades of declining trends. Sub-group analyses also indicated higher prevalence among underground miners, and in Central Appalachia. The mortality studies were suggestive of reduced pneumoconiosis mortality rates over time, relative to the general population. Conclusion: The ongoing prevalence of occupational lung diseases among contemporary coal miners highlights the importance of respiratory surveillance and preventive efforts through effective dust control measures. Limited prevalence studies from countries other than the United States limits our understanding of the current disease burden in other coal-producing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia Lu & Paramita Dasgupta & Jessica Cameron & Lin Fritschi & Peter Baade, 2021. "A systematic review and meta-analysis on international studies of prevalence, mortality and survival due to coal mine dust lung disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-29, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255617
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255617
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255617&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0255617?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mueller, Rose M., 2022. "Surface coal mining and public health disparities: Evidence from Appalachia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0255617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.