ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2019
Systematic Reviews in Occupational Health and Safety: where are we and where should we go?
Article in La Medicina del lavoro, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of large language models as decision support tools in occupational health and safety management: a cohort study of industrial workers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Survey to assess the feasibility of establishing an international network for evidence synthesis in occupational safety and health.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of preventive interventions and Randomised Controlled Trials in Occupational Health: an overview of the last five decades.La Medicina del lavoro · 2021Review
- Current Italian contribution to research in Occupational Medicine.La Medicina del lavoro · 2021Article
- Circadian Disruption from Urban Night-Time Noise and Endocrine Health Risks in Shift Workers.Noise & healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic Reviews have been introduced to improve the synthesis of available evidence and to reduce bias in the conclusions about a body of evidence. Nowadays, Systematic Review is an established method also in the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) field. It is the Cochrane Work Review Group that facilitates authors to produce Cochrane reviews of intervention topics in this area. A variety of guidelines used Cochrane Work reviews for underpinning their recommendations. Due to the comprehensive search and reproducibility of the methods of a systematic review, it turned out that systematic reviews can be powerful in changing beliefs. For example, studies published in the eighties advocated the use of back schools. Nowadays, we know that the total body of evidence has changed the traditional view that training in lifting techniques could prevent back pain. 'Sitting is the new smoking' is an eye catching nicely alliterating motto, but it is of course highly overstated. The findings of a Cochrane review of the effects of interventions to decrease sitting at work showed that sitting time can be reduced by a bit less than two hours per day by providing sit-stand desks plus education. However, it is unclear if this is sufficient to counter the effects of sitting. A wealth of evidence on OSH interventions has been collected by international collaboration in the Cochrane Work Review Group. This can be extended to systematic reviews of the effects of exposure of workers to assess to which risks of adverse health effects they are exposed.
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.