Quantifying the Silicosis Burden: A Meta-

Analysis of Prevalence among Industrial

Workers in India

Abstract ID: YLN23-37

Presenting Author: Dr Suman Kumar Raushan (PG-2nd year)

ESIC MCH, Faridabad

Co-author: Dr Abhishek Jaiswal (Assistant Professor)

Dept of Community Medicine, ESIC MCH, Faridabad

Co-author: Dr Pooja Goyal (Professor & Head)

Dept of Community Medicine, ESIC MCH, Faridabad
 INTRODUCTION
• Globally, Silicosis accounts for 90% of all pneumoconiosis cases 1

• Silica dust exposure (workers) 3 million, whilst 8.5 million more work in construction
with similar exposures2

• Prevalence of Silicosis  4% to 54.6 % among industrial workers of India 3-4

• Silicosis (progressing disease, 10-30 yrs), silica dust lung inflammation pulmonary
fibrosis 5

• Mining, tunnelling, road construction, pottery making, sandblasting, rock drilling, stone
cutting, and quarrying6

• Estimating burden of Silicosis will help in policy making & advocate need for Silicosis
dedicated health programs
 OBJECTIVE
• To estimate the prevalence of silicosis among industrial workers in India

MATERIAL AND METHODS

• Study population : Industrial workers in India
• Inclusion criteria :
a) Peer-reviewed studies documenting silicosis prevalence among industrial workers in India
b) Silicosis diagnosed with X ray or CT scan
c) Studies in English or with translated abstracts
Exclusion Criteria:
a) Studies conducted outside of India
b) Studies reporting qualitative data
c) Studies reporting secondary data

Search Strategy:
• Databases-Medline, Google scholar, Scopus and Cochrane library.
• Keywords related to "silicosis," "industrial workers," and "India" were used.
• Boolean operators (AND, OR)

Study Selection
• Screening- Two independent reviewers
• Discrepancies- Third reviewer
Data Extraction
Using a standardized form, including study characteristics such as author, publication year,
sample size, diagnostic criteria, Industry type & prevalence

Data Synthesis
Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence of silicosis. Random-effects model
was used to account for heterogeneity between studies

Subgroup Analysis
Subgroup analyses was conducted based on factors such as industry type

Publication Bias
Statistical tests (e.g., Egger's test) to evaluate the presence of selective reporting.
 Summary of finding tables
S.No Author Yea Industry type Prevalenc S.No Author Year Industry type Prevalence
r e
15 Gangopadhyay et al 1994 Mica mines 5.2
1 Caplan and Burden 1947 Gold mines 8.84 16 Saiyed et al 1995 Potteries 15.1
Chief advisory
2 factories 1953 Mica mines 34 17 Sadhu et al 1995 Agate workers 38

3 Ministory of labour 1960 Manganese mines 4.1 18 Chaudhury N et al 2007 Clinical setting 69.1
Chief advisory Rajnarayan R Tiwari
4 factories 1961 Lead & zinc mines 30.4 19 (1) 2010 Quartz Industry 42.5
Rajnarayan R Tiwari
5 Gupta et al 1972 Stone Cutters 35.2 20 (2) 2010 Quartz Industry 0.5
6 Viswanathan et al 1972 Ordanance factory 3.5 21 Athavale A et al 2011 flourmill workers 30.4

7 Sethi and Kapoor 1982 Stone Cutters 25 22 Debasis Chatterjee (1) 2016 Phosphate Mine 4.99

8 Gowda 1983 Gold mines 13.9 23 Debasis Chatterjee (2) 2016 Limestone Mine 7.69
24 Debasis Chatterjee (3) 2016 Lignite Mine 4.15
9 Saini et al 1984 Stone cutters 20
25 Debasis Chatterjee (4) 2016 Gypsum Mine 10.48
10 Saiyad HN et al 1985 Slate pencil industry 54.6
26 Mohammad Shamim 2017 Community based 4
11 Saiyed et al 1985 Slate pencil workers 54.6
27 Saranya Rajavel 2017 Sandstone mines 44.7
12 Samal et al 1986 Foundries workers 27.2 MB Govindagoudar et Stone crushing
28 al 2021 workers 9
13 NIOH 1986 Quartz crushing 12
29 Subroto S 2021 Sandstone mines 52
 Results
Total no. of articles included
in systematic review = 39

Total no of articles included

in meta-analysis = 21
Egger’s test
P value= 0.0007
Eggers test of asymmetry was significant Thereby presence of publication bias cannot be excluded
Conclusion
● Pooled prevalence of Silicosis among industrial workers in India is 29.07
[19.33, 38.81] at 95 % CI.
● Sub group analysis in stone mine workers have shown the pooled
prevalence of Silicosis is 29.46 [11.76, 47.16] at 95 % CI.
● Presence of publication bias could not be excluded.
REFERENCES
1. Liu, X., Jiang, Q., Wu, P. et al. Global incidence, prevalence and disease burden of silicosis: 30 years’ overview and
forecasted trends. BMC Public Health 23, 1366 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16295-2
2. Jindal SK. Silicosis in India: past and present. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2013 Mar;19(2):163-8. doi:
10.1097/MCP.0b013e32835bb19e. PMID: 23254775.
3. Mohammad, Shamim & Alharbi, Waheeb & Pasha, Tariq & Nour, Mohamed. (2017). SILICOSIS, A MONUMENTAL
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CRISIS IN RAJASTHAN-AN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SURVEY. International Journal of Research -
GRANTHAALAYAH. 5. 554-583. 10.29121/granthaalayah.v5.i7.2017.2164.
4. Chaudhury, Nayanjeet & Phatak, Ajay & Paliwal, Rajiv & Raichaudhari, Chandra. (2010). Silicosis among agate workers
at Shakarpur: An analysis of clinic-based data. Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society. 27. 221-4.
10.4103/0970-2113.71955.
5. Association AL. Learn about silicosis [Internet]. [cited 2023 Nov 1]. Available from: https://www.lung.org/lung-health-
diseases/lung-disease-lookup/silicosis/learn-about-silicosis#:~:text=Silicosis%20is%20an%20interstitial%20lung,lung
%20scarring%2C%20called%20pulmonary%20fibrosis.