Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25224337›Full record

SynthesisIndustrial health2015

Measuring allostatic load in the workforce: a systematic review.

Daniel Mauss, Jian Li, Burkhard Schmidt, Peter Angerer, Marc N Jarczok

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Industrial health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Neurobiological and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of a Deep Diaphragmatic Breathing Technique Based on Neofunctional Psychotherapy: A Pilot RCT.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2024
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Daniel MaussMannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Germany; Occupational Health Services, Allianz Germany, Germany.
Jian Li
Burkhard Schmidt
Peter Angerer
Marc N Jarczok

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Allostatic Load Index (ALI) has been used to establish associations between stress and health-related outcomes. This review summarizes the measurement and methodological challenges of allostatic load in occupational settings. Databases of Medline, PubPsych, and Cochrane were searched to systematically explore studies measuring ALI in working adults following the PRISMA statement. Study characteristics, biomarkers and methods were tabulated. Methodological quality was evaluated using a standardized checklist. Sixteen articles (2003-2013) met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 39 (range 6-17) different variables used to calculate ALI. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the number and type of biomarkers used, the analytic techniques applied and study quality. Particularly, primary mediators were not regularly included in ALI calculation. Consensus on methods to measure ALI in working populations is limited. Research should include longitudinal studies using multi-systemic variables to measure employees at risk for biological wear and tear.

Indexed as

Occupational HealthAllostasisBiomarkersHumansStress, PsychologicalWorkplaceBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID25224337
PMCPMC4331190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.