ArticleBMC public health2019
Spontaneous and repeat spontaneous abortion risk in relation to occupational characteristics among working Korean women: a cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative data from Korea.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pregnancy, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes in women exposed to physician-related occupational hazards: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2023Pooled it
- Health Status, Health-Related Factors and Work Environment in Korean Semiconductor Workers between 1984-2012: A Qualitative Study and a Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Association Between Long Working Hours and Infertility.Safety and health at work · 2021Article
- Ergonomic Stressors Among Pregnant Healthcare Workers: Impact on pregnancy outcomes and recommended safety practices.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2021Review
- Correction to: Spontaneous and repeat spontaneous abortion risk in relation to occupational characteristics among working Korean women: a cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative data from Korea.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe association between spontaneous abortion (SA) and occupational characteristics among working women is not well-studied. This study aimed to assess the risk of SA and occupational factors such as occupational classification, working hours, and work schedules among working Korean women aged > 19 years.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 4078 working women were identified from among 25,534 workers in the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys V (2010-2012) database, to obtain data on SA history and the number of SAs. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for SA were calculated using multiple logistic regression models after adjusting for age, education, household income, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, and obesity status. The weighted prevalence for the number of SAs was calculated according to occupational characteristics to demonstrate the SA status among working Korean women.
resultsSA occurrence was reported in 5.7% of the study participants. The ORs (95% CIs) for SA were significantly higher in pink-, green-, and blue-collared workers than in white-collared workers. Regarding weekly working hours, compared with ≤50 h spent working, the ORs (95% CIs) for 51-60, 61-70, and > 70 h per week were 1.26 (0.87-1.84), 1.63 (1.04-2.56), and 1.73 (1.10-2.70), respectively. A significantly higher weighted prevalence of repeat SAs was observed in pink- and green-collared workers and in those who worked long hours.
conclusionWe found a significant association between SA, repeat SA, and occupational characteristics among working Korean women.
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.