↓ Skip to main content

Household interventions for preventing domestic lead exposure in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
17 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Household interventions for preventing domestic lead exposure in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006047.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Berlinda Yeoh, Ursula Griebler, Lisa M Pfadenhauer, Laura K Busert, Stefan K Lhachimi, Szimonetta Lohner, Gerald Gartlehner

Abstract

Lead poisoning is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children, and trials have tested many household interventions to prevent lead exposure. This is an update of the original review, first published in 2008. To assess the effects of household interventions for preventing or reducing lead exposure in children, as measured by improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels. In May 2016 we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and two trials registers: the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to find unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure. Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included 14 studies involving 2643 children: 13 RCTs (involving 2565 children) and one quasi-RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Thirteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, and one was in Australia. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in all studies. The duration of the intervention ranged from 3 months to 24 months in 12 studies, while 2 studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 48 months. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. We rated two RCTs and one quasi-RCT as being at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs as being at high risk of attrition bias. For educational interventions, we rated the quality of evidence to be high for continuous blood lead levels and moderate for all other outcomes. For environmental interventions, we assessed the quality of evidence as moderate to low. National or international research grants or governments funded 12 studies, while the other 2 did not report their funding sources.No studies reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes. No studies reported on adverse events in children. All studies reported blood lead level outcomes.We put studies into subgroups according to their intervention type. We performed meta-analyses of both continuous and dichotomous data for subgroups where appropriate. Educational interventions were not effective in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.12, I² = 0%; 5 studies; N = 815; high quality evidence (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.30; I² = 0%; 4 studies; N = 520; moderate quality evidence; dichotomous ≥ 15.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.09; I² = 0%; 4 studies; N = 520; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analysis for the dust control subgroup also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.11; I² = 90%; 3 studies; N = 298; low quality evidence (log transformed); dichotomous ≥ 10.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.48 µmol/L): RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18; I² = 0; 2 studies; N = 210; moderate quality evidence; dichotomous ≥ 15.0 µg/dL (≥ 0.72 µmol/L): RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07; I² = 56%; 2 studies; N = 210; low quality evidence). After adjusting the dust control subgroup for clustering in meta-analysis, we found no evidence of effectiveness. We could not pool the studies using soil abatement (removal and replacement) and combination intervention groups in a meta-analysis due to substantial differences between studies, and generalisability or reproducibility of the results from these studies is unknown. Therefore, there is currently insufficient evidence to clarify whether soil abatement or a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels. Based on current knowledge, household educational interventions are ineffective in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. Dust control interventions may lead to little or no difference in blood lead levels (the quality of evidence was moderate to low, meaning that future research is likely to change these results). There is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement or combination interventions. No study reported on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes or adverse events. These patient-relevant outcomes would have been of great interest to draw conclusions for practice.Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for preventing lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low- and middle-income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high-income countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 211 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 22%
Researcher 37 17%
Unspecified 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Other 17 8%
Other 57 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 30%
Unspecified 43 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Social Sciences 20 9%
Environmental Science 15 7%
Other 43 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2019.
All research outputs
#676,873
of 13,444,619 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,167
of 10,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,698
of 289,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,444,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.