Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21154401›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Pre-employment examinations for preventing occupational injury and disease in workers.

Norashikin Mahmud, Eva Schonstein, Frederieke Schaafsma, Marika M Lehtola, Jean-Baptiste Fassier, Michiel F Reneman, Jos H Verbeek

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Improving fit to work assessments for rail safety workers by exploring work limitations.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Norashikin MahmudFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Cumberland Campus C42, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW, Australia, 1825.
Eva Schonstein
Frederieke Schaafsma
Marika M Lehtola
Jean-Baptiste Fassier
Michiel F Reneman
Jos H Verbeek
University of Sydney · AUFinnish Institute of Occupational Health · FIUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany employers and other stakeholders believe that health examinations of job applicants prevent occupational diseases and sickness absence.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of pre-employment examinations of job applicants in preventing occupational injury, disease and sickness absence compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and PEDro (to December 2009) not restricted by date, language or publication type. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBA), and interrupted time-series (ITS) of health examinations to prevent occupational diseases and injuries in job applicants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors (NM, ML, JV, ES) independently selected studies, extracted data, and determined study quality. The studies were too heterogeneous for statistical pooling of results. MAIN

resultsWe included two RCTs, five CBA studies and two ITS. Seven studies with 5872 participants evaluated the screening process of pre-employment examinations and two studies with 2164 participants evaluated the measures to mitigate the risks found following the screening process.Of those studies that evaluated the screening process, one study found that a general examination did not reduce sick leave (Mean Difference -0.1 95% CI -0.5 to 0.3) but another study found that a more task focused examination did (MD -36 95% CI -68.3 to -3.8). One study found that incorporation of a bronchial challenge test decreased occupational asthma (trend change -2.6 95% CI -3.6 to -1.5). Three studies that included functional capacity evaluation found contradictory effects on injury rates and number of medical visits. The rates of rejecting job applicants varied from 2% to 35%.Neither of the two studies that evaluated risk mitigation found an increased injury rate after training or work accommodations had been implemented.We rated the evidence for all outcomes as very low quality. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is very low quality evidence that pre-employment examinations that are specific to certain jobs or health problems could reduce occupational disease, injury, or sickness absence. This supports the current policy to restrict pre-employment examinations to job-specific examinations. More studies are needed that take into account the harms of rejecting job applicants.

Indexed as

EmploymentAccidents, OccupationalHumansOccupational DiseasesPersonnel SelectionPhysical ExaminationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSick LeaveWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID21154401
OpenAlexW2162272000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.