ArticleRevista espanola de salud publica2019
[Workers especially sensitive to cardiovascular risk].
Article in Revista espanola de salud publica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOf the 607 fatal work accidents produced in Spain in 2016, 37.9% were due to ischemic heart disease and cerebral stroke. Working conditions such as night work, noise or respiratory pollutants are associated with higher cardiovascular incidence. The objective of the present study was to assess whether health surveillance in workers exposed to these conditions should include the assessment of cardiovascular risk.
methodsCross-sectional study of 680 workers in a public administration. The working conditions were obtained from the business risk assessment and the personal data that allowed the cardiovascular risk assessment, from the medical examination carried out in 2015. For the statistical analysis, Chi-square test (prevalence comparison) and Student's T test or Mann Whitney U test (means comparison), were applied.
resultsExposed was 30.1%, showing significant differences by sex (37% men, 11.9% women, p<0.05). According to REGICOR, 13.2% of those exposed were particularly susceptible to cardiovascular risk.
conclusionsA large percentage of workers were exposed to CT related to a higher prevalence of cardiovascular pathology. The percentage of workers qualified as especially sensitive to cardiovascular risk among those exposed suggests that it should be assessed in the monitoring of occupational health when there are working conditions related to cardiovascular pathology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31558695PMC11582782What 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.