Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31659990›Full record

ArticleLa Medicina del lavoro2019

Systematic Reviews in Occupational Health and Safety: where are we and where should we go?

Jos Verbeek, Stefano Mattioli, Stefania Curti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Jos Verbeek. jverbeek@cochrane.org.
Stefano Mattioli
Stefania Curti

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Occupational HealthSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansReproducibility of ResultsSitting Position

Identifiers

PMID31659990
PMCPMC7810017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.