ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2016
Heavy lifting at work and risk of retinal detachment: a population-based register study in Denmark.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cohort study of retinal detachment among Swedish construction workers.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2023Article
- Neglected cause of retinal detachment: a hospital-based case-control study on occupational heavy lifting as a risk factor.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2021Article
- Risk Factors for Retinal Detachment: A Case-Control Study.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2020Article
- Occupational lifting and rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a follow-up study of Swedish conscripts.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the relationship between rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD) and frequent heavy lifting in a Danish working population through national register data.
methodsA dynamic cohort of all men aged 20-59 years in Denmark was followed through the Danish Occupational Hospitalisation Register from 1995 to 2010 for diagnosed RRD. Occupational categories were classified according to their potential for heavy lifting in 4 main groups: heavy lifters, manual workers unlikely to be heavy lifters, other manual workers and non-manual workers unlikely to be heavy lifters. The age-standardised rate of diagnosed RRD for heavy lifting occupations was compared with that experienced by the other 3 occupational categories. Rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated through a Poisson regression model adjusted for calendar period and age group.
resultsThe highest age-standardised rate of diagnosed RRD was recorded among non-manual workers performing occupational activities unlikely to be associated with heavy lifting (18.0 cases per 100,000 person-years). The RR for workers in jobs expected to entail a high frequency of heavy lifting compared with manual workers whose occupation was unlikely to be associated with heavy lifting was 0.91 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.14), while in comparison with other manual workers, it was 0.93 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.11). The RR compared with non-manual workers in occupations unlikely to entail heavy lifting was 0.51 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.60).
conclusionsThese findings do not support an association of occupational heavy lifting with diagnosed RRD. The epidemiological evidence for this association is still inconclusive. Future studies should use a more specific measure of exposure to resolve the outstanding uncertainties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.