-
Iranian Journal of Public Health Feb 2023A large portion of Iranian Working Population (IWP) is becoming at risk of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (ONIHL). Several primary studies have evaluated the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A large portion of Iranian Working Population (IWP) is becoming at risk of Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss (ONIHL). Several primary studies have evaluated the prevalence of ONIHL in Iran with a variety of prevalence rates. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of ONIHL in the IWP using data from relevant studies.
METHODS
The present study is a meta-analysis and systematic review of previously published studies on ONIHL in Iran. Accordingly, the relevant articles published until Sep 1, 2021 were searched through Pub-Med, Scopus, and Google Scholar, together with Iranian scientific electronic databases. Heterogeneity between among the studies and data analysis was assessed using the I2 test and Random-Effect Model (REM) respectively.
RESULTS
Having performed a quality assessment, the meta-analysis was performed on the data from twenty-six studies involving a total of 85685 participants. The prevalence of ONIHL was observed to range from 12.9% to 60.5% in the reviewed studies. Moreover, after combining the results from the primary research by the Random Effects Model (REM) approach, the prevalence of ONIHL among IWP was estimated to be 34.69% (95% CI: 29.10, 40.28).
CONCLUSION
ONIHL is a significant concern with regard to public and occupational health in Iran. The results also highlighted the urgent need for taking appropriate preventive and control measures in the work-places; particularly by encouraging the employers and health-related policymakers to focus on preventive noise control techniques along with administrative and legislative approaches to mitigate the risk of developing ONIHL.
PubMed: 37089160
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v52i2.11881 -
BMJ Open Jun 2023Sedentary behaviour is associated with increased cancer risk. We aim to assess the associations of domain-specific and total sedentary behaviour with risk of endometrial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Sedentary behaviour is associated with increased cancer risk. We aim to assess the associations of domain-specific and total sedentary behaviour with risk of endometrial cancer, with additional attention paid to potential differences in adjustment strategy for obesity and physical activity.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) and Meta-Analyses and the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE).
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase and MEDLINE databases were searched up to 28 February 2023, supplemented by grey literature searches.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Observational human studies evaluating the association between sedentary behaviour and endometrial cancer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers extracted data and conducted the quality assessment based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) independently. We used a random-effects model with inverse variance approach to pool the estimates. The extent of heterogeneity was quantified with the statistics.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review. Fourteen studies involving 882 686 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled relative risks (RRs) for high versus low level of overall sedentary behaviour was 1.28 (95% CI: 1.14 to 1.43; =34.8%). The increased risk regarding specific domains was 1.22 (95% CI: 1.09 to 1.37; I=13.4%, n=10) for occupational domain, 1.34 (95% CI: 0.98 to 1.83; I=53.7%, n=6) for leisure-time domain and 1.55 (95% CI: 1.27 to 1.89; I=0.0%, n=2) for total sedentary behaviour. Larger pooled RRs were observed among studies with adjustment for physical activity and studies without adjustment for body mass index.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher levels of sedentary behaviour, total and occupational sedentary behaviour in particular, increase the risk of endometrial cancer. Future studies are needed to verify domain-specific associations based on objective quantification of sedentary behaviour, as well as the interaction of physical activity, adiposity and sedentary time on endometrial cancer.
Topics: Humans; Female; Sedentary Behavior; Obesity; Exercise; Endometrial Neoplasms
PubMed: 37280028
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069042 -
International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2021Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP), including gestational hypertension (GH) and preeclampsia (PE), characterize a major cause of maternal and prenatal morbidity... (Review)
Review
Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP), including gestational hypertension (GH) and preeclampsia (PE), characterize a major cause of maternal and prenatal morbidity and mortality. In this systematic review, we tested the hypothesis that occupational factors would impact the risk for HDP in pregnant workers. MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for studies published between database inception and 1 April 2021. All observational studies enrolling > 10 pregnant workers and published in English were included. Un-experimental, non-occupational human studies were excluded. Evidence was synthesized according to the risk for HDP development in employed women, eventually exposed to chemical, physical, biological and organizational risk factors. The evidence quality was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Out of 745 records identified, 27 were eligible. No definite conclusions could be extrapolated for the majority of the examined risk factors, while more homogenous data supported positive associations between job-strain and HDP risk. Limitations due to the lack of suitable characterizations of workplace exposure (i.e., doses, length, co-exposures) and possible interplay with personal issues should be deeply addressed. This may be helpful to better assess occupational risks for pregnant women and plan adequate measures of control to protect their health and that of their children.
Topics: Child; Female; Humans; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Pre-Eclampsia; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Workplace
PubMed: 34444025
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18168277 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2023Teleworking has spread drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its effect on musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD) remains unclear. We aimed to make a qualitative... (Review)
Review
Teleworking has spread drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its effect on musculo-skeletal disorders (MSD) remains unclear. We aimed to make a qualitative systematic review on the effect of teleworking on MSD. Following the PRISMA guidelines, several databases were searched using strings based on MSD and teleworking keywords. A two-step selection process was used to select relevant studies and a risk of bias assessment was made. Relevant variables were extracted from the articles included, with a focus on study design, population, definition of MSD, confounding factors, and main results. Of 205 studies identified, 25 were included in the final selection. Most studies used validated questionnaires to assess MSD, six considered confounders extensively, and seven had a control group. The most reported MSD were lower back and neck pain. Some studies found increased prevalence or pain intensity, while others did not. Risk of bias was high, with only 5 studies with low/probably low risk of bias. Conflicting results on the effect of teleworking on MSD were found, though an increase in MSD related to organizational and ergonomic factors seems to emerge. Future studies should focus on longitudinal approaches and consider ergonomic and work organization factors as well as socio-economic status.
Topics: Humans; Teleworking; Pandemics; COVID-19; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Neck Pain; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 36981881
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20064973 -
Annals of Work Exposures and Health Apr 2021An estimated 125 million workers are exposed to asbestos worldwide. Asbestos is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
An estimated 125 million workers are exposed to asbestos worldwide. Asbestos is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a Group 1 carcinogen. The association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer is not well established however. This study aimed to determine the mortality and incidence of kidney cancer in workers who have been exposed to asbestos. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for articles on occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer. The studies reported the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) or standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of kidney cancer in workers exposed to asbestos. SMRs or SIRs with its 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using a fixed-effect model.
RESULTS
Forty-nine cohort studies involving 335 492 workers were selected for analysis. These studies included 468 kidney cancer deaths and 160 incident cases. The overall pooled-SMR of kidney cancer was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.86-1.05), with no significant heterogeneity (PQ = 0.09, I2 = 24.87%). The overall pooled-SIR of kidney cancer was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.79-1.11), with no significant heterogeneity (PQ = 0.68, I2 = 0.00%). Subgroup analysis did not find any increased association with occupational asbestos exposure. There was no evidence of publication bias with Egger's test P values of 0.08 for mortality studies and 0.99 for incidence studies.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis did not show evidence of association between occupational asbestos exposure and kidney cancer mortality or incidence.
Topics: Asbestos; Cohort Studies; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 33367604
DOI: 10.1093/annweh/wxaa114 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2023Although a higher lung cancer risk has been already associated with arsenic exposure, the contribution of arsenic and its compounds to the carcinogenic effects of other... (Review)
Review
Although a higher lung cancer risk has been already associated with arsenic exposure, the contribution of arsenic and its compounds to the carcinogenic effects of other agents, such as tobacco smoke, is not well characterized. This systematic review examined the relationship between occupational and non-occupational arsenic exposure and tobacco smoking on lung cancer risk using papers published from 2010 to 2022. Two databases, PUBMED and Scifinder, were used for the searches. Among the sixteen human studies included, four were about occupational exposure, and the others were about arsenic in drinking water. Furthermore, only three case-control studies and two cohort studies evaluated an additive or multiplicative interaction. The interaction between arsenic exposure and tobacco smoke seems to be negligible at low arsenic concentrations (<100 μg/L), while there is a synergistic effect at higher concentrations. Finally, it is not yet possible to assess whether a linear no-threshold (LNT) model for lung cancer risk can be applied to the co-exposure to arsenic and tobacco smoke. Although the methodological quality of the included studies is good, these findings suggest that rigorous and accurate prospective studies on this topic are highly needed.
Topics: Humans; Tobacco Smoke Pollution; Smoking; Arsenic; Prospective Studies; Lung Neoplasms; Lung; Occupational Exposure
PubMed: 36901176
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20054167 -
Environment International Aug 2023The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal): A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large number of individual experts. Evidence from human, animal and mechanistic data suggests that occupational exposure to dusts and/or fibres (silica, asbestos and coal dust) causes pneumoconiosis. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust. These estimates of prevalences and levels will serve as input data for estimating (if feasible) the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years that are attributable to occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust among working-age (≥ 15 years) workers.
DATA SOURCES
We searched electronic academic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CISDOC. We also searched electronic grey literature databases, Internet search engines and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews and included study records; and consulted additional experts.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
We included working-age (≥ 15 years) workers in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (< 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included all study types with objective dust or fibre measurements, published between 1960 and 2018, that directly or indirectly reported an estimate of the prevalence and/or level of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and/or coal dust.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
At least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, then data were extracted from qualifying studies. We combined prevalence estimates by industrial sector (ISIC-4 2-digit level with additional merging within Mining, Manufacturing and Construction) using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias and all available authors assessed the quality of evidence, using the ROB-SPEO tool and QoE-SPEO approach developed specifically for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
RESULTS
Eighty-eight studies (82 cross-sectional studies and 6 longitudinal studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising > 2.4 million measurements covering 23 countries from all WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia, Europe, and Western Pacific). The target population in all 88 included studies was from major ISCO groups 3 (Technicians and Associate Professionals), 6 (Skilled Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers), 7 (Craft and Related Trades Workers), 8 (Plant and Machine Operators and Assemblers), and 9 (Elementary Occupations), hereafter called manual workers. Most studies were performed in Construction, Manufacturing and Mining. For occupational exposure to silica, 65 studies (61 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) were included with > 2.3 million measurements collected in 22 countries in all six WHO regions. For occupational exposure to asbestos, 18 studies (17 cross-sectional studies and 1 longitudinal) were included with > 20,000 measurements collected in eight countries in five WHO regions (no data for Africa). For occupational exposure to coal dust, eight studies (all cross-sectional) were included comprising > 100,000 samples in six countries in five WHO regions (no data for Eastern Mediterranean). Occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust was assessed with personal or stationary active filter sampling; for silica and asbestos, gravimetric assessment was followed by technical analysis. Risk of bias profiles varied between the bodies of evidence looking at asbestos, silica and coal dust, as well as between industrial sectors. However, risk of bias was generally highest for the domain of selection of participants into the studies. The largest bodies of evidence for silica related to the industrial sectors of Construction (ISIC 41-43), Manufacturing (ISIC 20, 23-25, 27, 31-32) and Mining (ISIC 05, 07, 08). For Construction, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.93, 17 studies, I 91%, moderate quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing, the pooled prevalence estimate was 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, 24 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. The pooled prevalence estimate for Mining was 0.75 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.82, 20 studies, I 100%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.04 mg/m (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05, 17 studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Crop and animal production (ISIC 01; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Professional, scientific and technical activities (ISIC 71, 74; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level). For asbestos, the pooled prevalence estimate for Construction (ISIC 41, 43, 45,) was 0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, six studies, I 99%, low quality of evidence) and the level estimate was rated as of very low quality of evidence. For Manufacturing (ISIC 13, 23-24, 29-30), the pooled prevalence and level estimates were rated as being of very low quality of evidence. Smaller bodies of evidence were identified for Other mining and quarrying (ISIC 08; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35; very low quality of evidence for both prevalence and level); and Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation (ISIC 37; very low quality of evidence for levels). For coal dust, the pooled prevalence estimate for Mining of coal and lignite (ISIC 05), was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00, six studies, I 16%, moderate quality of evidence) and the pooled level estimate was 0.77 mg/m (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86, three studies, I 100%, low quality of evidence). A small body of evidence was identified for Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply (ISIC 35); with very low quality of evidence for prevalence, and the pooled level estimate being 0.60 mg/m (95% CI -6.95 to 8.14, one study, low quality of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we judged the bodies of evidence for occupational exposure to silica to vary by industrial sector between very low and moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and very low and low for level. For occupational exposure to asbestos, the bodies of evidence varied by industrial sector between very low and low quality of evidence for prevalence and were of very low quality of evidence for level. For occupational exposure to coal dust, the bodies of evidence were of very low or moderate quality of evidence for prevalence, and low for level. None of the included studies were population-based studies (i.e., covered the entire workers' population in the industrial sector), which we judged to present serious concern for indirectness, except for occupational exposure to coal dust within the industrial sector of mining of coal and lignite. Selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to silica by industrial sector are considered suitable as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, and selected estimates of the prevalences and levels of occupational exposure to asbestos and coal dust may perhaps also be suitable for estimation purposes. Protocol identifier: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.06.005. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084131.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Occupational Diseases; Dust; Prevalence; Silicon Dioxide; Cross-Sectional Studies; Coal; Steam; Asbestos; Occupational Exposure; World Health Organization; Cost of Illness
PubMed: 37487377
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2023.107980 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jun 2020(1) : Due to inconsistencies in epidemiological findings, there has been uncertainty regarding the association of lead compounds with brain tumors. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
(1) : Due to inconsistencies in epidemiological findings, there has been uncertainty regarding the association of lead compounds with brain tumors. We performed a meta-analysis of published case-control and cohort studies exploring lead compound exposure and brain tumor risk. (2) : We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane to find eligible studies. Eighteen studies were selected for assessment of occupational exposure to lead compound and brain tumor. Pooled estimates of odds ratios (ORs) were obtained using random effects models. We assessed the differences through subgroup analysis according to tumor type, study design, measurements of exposure, and tumor outcome. Statistical tests for publication bias, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis were applied. (3) : Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed a not significant association with lead exposure and risk of benign and malignant brain tumors (pooled OR = 1.11, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.95-1.29). Including only malignant brain tumors, the risk of brain tumor was significantly increased (pooled OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04-1.24). (4) : This meta-analysis provides suggestive evidence for an association between lead compound exposure and brain tumor. In future studies, it will be necessary to identify the effect of lead compounds according to the types of brain tumor.
Topics: Australia; Brain Neoplasms; Humans; Lead; Occupational Exposure; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 32503353
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17113975 -
Applied Ergonomics Apr 2023This systematic review updates a previous systematic review on work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors for elbow disorders. Medline, Embase, Web of Science,... (Review)
Review
This systematic review updates a previous systematic review on work-related physical and psychosocial risk factors for elbow disorders. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and PsycINFO were searched for studies on associations between work-related physical or psychosocial risk factors and the occurrence of elbow disorders. Two independent reviewers selected eligible studies and assessed risk of bias (RoB). Results of studies were synthesized narratively. We identified 17 new studies and lateral epicondylitis was the most studied disorder (13 studies). Five studies had a prospective cohort design, eight were cross-sectional and four were case-control. Only one study had no items rated as high RoB. Combined physical exposure indicators (e.g. physical exertion combined with elbow movement) were associated with the occurrence of lateral epicondylitis. No other consistent associations were observed for other physical and psychosocial exposures. These results prevent strong conclusions regarding associations between work-related exposures, and the occurrence of elbow disorders.
Topics: Humans; Elbow; Tennis Elbow; Prospective Studies; Occupational Diseases; Elbow Joint
PubMed: 36493677
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103952 -
International Maritime Health 2021Occupational noise exposure has been identified as a significant risk factor for fish harvesters. Chronic noise exposure causes hearing and other health problems and...
BACKGROUND
Occupational noise exposure has been identified as a significant risk factor for fish harvesters. Chronic noise exposure causes hearing and other health problems and undermines the quality of life and well-being. This review paper aims to highlight noise-related auditory and non-auditory health effects among fish harvesters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search approach was adopted using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and by exploring grey literature. The literature search was conducted in 2020 (between October 15 and November 30). Relevant articles were explored by reviewing title, keywords, and abstract based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The full-text critical review of selected papers was made and finalized the most relevant studies.
RESULTS
Initial 1,281 records were identified, exploring various databases and additional sources using relevant keywords. Duplicate articles were removed and retrieved 746 articles. After that, a screening of 746 research papers was done based on the selection criteria and finalised 28 articles for full-text review. Finally, articles were filtered based on the study's aim and extracted 17 papers for the final review.
CONCLUSIONS
Noise-induced hearing loss was considered a significant health risk to fish harvesters across the studies, affecting physical and emotional well-being. The prevalence of hearing loss was observed from 6% to 80%. Other health problems, such as headache, dizziness, annoyance, stress, fatigue, elevated blood pressure, sleep disturbances, and impaired cognitive performance, were also reported. Further research is needed to validate the non-auditory health effects among fish harvesters.
Topics: Animals; Fisheries; Hearing Loss, Noise-Induced; Humans; Noise, Occupational; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Exposure; Occupations; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34604990
DOI: 10.5603/IMH.2021.0038