Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26269279›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational health2015

Reproductive disorders in hairdressers and cosmetologists: a meta-analytical approach.

Jean-Bernard Henrotin, Cyndie Picot, Myriam Bouslama, Dorothée Collot-Fertey, Anca Radauceanu, Marie-thérèse Labro, Béatrice Larroque, Alain-Claude Roudot, Nessryne Sater, Mostafa Ould Elhkim and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jean-Bernard HenrotinNational Research and Safety Institute.
Cyndie Picot
Myriam Bouslama
Dorothée Collot-Fertey
Anca Radauceanu
Marie-thérèse Labro
Béatrice Larroque
Alain-Claude Roudot
Nessryne Sater
Mostafa Ould Elhkim
Dominique Lafon
Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité · FRAgence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail · FRNational Institute of Occupational Safety and Health · JPUniversité de Bretagne Occidentale · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and to use a meta-analytical approach to assess quantitatively the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in hairdressers and cosmetologists.

methodsA systematic literature search up to 1 February 2012 was carried out using major bibliographic databases, grey literature, contacts with research teams working on the subject, review papers and reference lists of selected articles. Observational studies reporting measures of effects in relation with body care (hairdressers, cosmetologists, etc.) and reproductive disorders were included. Study quality was assessed by three reviewers. The estimated risk ratios (RR) from all studies reporting on identical outcomes were combined using an average of logarithm transformation of estimated RR weighted by their inverted variance. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test. To explore the sources of heterogeneity, several sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted based on study quality, country, study period, alcohol consumption, smoking habit, jobs and control populations.

resultsNineteen studies were selected and reviewed in-depth. The combined risk ratios (RRcs) of five reproductive outcomes were calculated and found to be significantly increased for four outcomes: time to pregnancy, which had an RRc of 1.11 (95% CI: 1.03-1.19); premature birth, which had an RRc of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.99-1.11); small for gestational age, which had an RRc of 1.24 (95 CI%: 1.10-1.41); low birth weight, which had an RRc of 1.21 (95% CI: 1.06-1.39); and embryonic and fetal losses, which had an RRc of 1.19 (95% CI: 1.03-1.38).

conclusionsThis work confirms a weak increase in risk of some reproductive disorders in female hairdressers/cosmetologists. However, the evidence level is rather weak, and a causal association between job and reproductive outcomes cannot be asserted.

Indexed as

Beauty CulturePregnancy OutcomeAdultFemaleHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornInfant, Small for Gestational AgeOccupational DiseasesPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPremature BirthReproductionRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID26269279
PMCPMC6706229
OpenAlexW1173798398

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.