Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23235838›Full record

SynthesisScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2013

Miscarriage and occupational activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding shift work, working hours, lifting, standing, and physical workload.

Jens Peter Bonde, Kristian Tore Jørgensen, Matteo Bonzini, Keith T Palmer

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Is Sitting Really the New Smoking? Health of North American Workers Exposed to Prolonged Static Standing.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2025
    Article
  11. Ultimate Context of the Termination of Parental Investment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  12. BMAL1 Regulates Collagen Production in the Myometrium and Leiomyomas.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jens Peter BondeDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. jpb@bbh.regionh.dk
Kristian Tore Jørgensen
Matteo Bonzini
Keith T Palmer
University of Copenhagen · DKMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit · GBUniversity of Insubria · IT

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UP_A620_1018
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePrevious studies have indicated that shift work, long working hours, and prevalent workplace exposures such as lifting, standing, and physical workload increase the risk of miscarriage, but the evidence is conflicting. We conducted a systematic review of original research reports.

methodsA search in Medline and EMBASE 1966-2012 identified 30 primary papers reporting the relative risk (RR) of miscarriage according to ≥1 of 5 occupational activities of interest. Following an assessment of completeness of reporting, confounding, and bias, each risk estimate was characterized as more or less likely to be biased. Studies with equivalent measures of exposure were pooled to obtain a weighted common risk estimate. Sensitivity analyses excluded studies most likely to be biased.

resultsWorking fixed nights was associated with a moderately increased risk of miscarriage (pooled RR 1.51 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.27-1.78, N=5), while working in 3-shift schedules, working for 40-52 hours weekly, lifting >100 kg/day, standing >6-8 hours/day and physical workload were associated with small risk increments, with the pooled RR ranging from 1.12 (3-shift schedule, N=7) to 1.36 (working hours, N=10). RR for working hours and standing became smaller when analyses were restricted to higher quality studies.

conclusionsThese largely reassuring findings do not provide a strong case for mandatory restrictions in relation to shift work, long working hours, occupational lifting, standing, and physical workload. Considering the limited evidence base, however, it may be prudent to advise women against work entailing high levels of these exposures and women with at-risk pregnancies should receive tailored individual counseling.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousOccupational HealthWorkloadWork Schedule ToleranceFemaleHumansPregnancyProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID23235838
PMCPMC3699369
OpenAlexW2128247522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.