Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32536961›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2020

Cardiovascular health outcomes of mobbing at work: results of the population-based, five-year follow-up of the Gutenberg health study.

Karla Romero Starke, Janice Hegewald, Andreas Schulz, Susan Garthus-Niegel, Matthias Nübling, Philipp S Wild, Natalie Arnold, Ute Latza, Sylvia Jankowiak, Falk Liebers and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2020. 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
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

18 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Karla Romero StarkeInstitute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine (IPAS), Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6614-2381
Janice HegewaldInstitute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine (IPAS), Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Andreas SchulzPreventive Cardiology and Preventive Medicine, Center for Cardiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Susan Garthus-NiegelInstitute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine (IPAS), Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Matthias NüblingFFAW: The Freiburg Research Centre for Occupational and Social Medicine, Freiburg, Germany.
Philipp S WildPreventive Cardiology and Preventive Medicine, Center for Cardiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Natalie ArnoldPreventive Cardiology and Preventive Medicine, Center for Cardiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Ute LatzaDivision Work and Health, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BAuA, Berlin, Germany.
Sylvia JankowiakDivision Work and Health, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BAuA, Berlin, Germany.
Falk LiebersDivision Work and Health, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BAuA, Berlin, Germany.
Karin RossnagelDivision Work and Health, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, BAuA, Berlin, Germany.
Merle Riechmann-WolfInstitute for Teachers' Health, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Stephan LetzelInstitute of Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Manfred BeutelDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Norbert PfeifferDeparment of Ophtalmology, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Karl LacknerInstitute for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, University Medical Center Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Thomas MünzelPreventive Cardiology and Preventive Medicine, Center for Cardiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Andreas SeidlerInstitute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine (IPAS), Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEFederal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health · DEChemnitz University of Technology · DEUniversity Hospital Carl Gustav Carus · DEResearch Centre for Applied System Safety and Industrial Medicine · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine if there is an increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) resulting from workplace mobbing measured with two mobbing instruments in the Gutenberg Health Study.

methodsIn this prospective study, we examined working persons younger than 65 years for the presence of mobbing at baseline and at a 5-year follow-up using a single-item and a 5-item instrument. We used multivariate models to investigate the association between mobbing and incident CVD, hypertension, and change in arterial stiffness and further stratified the models by sex.

resultsAfter adjustment for confounders, mobbed workers appeared to have a higher risk of incident CVD than those not mobbed (single-item HR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.73-2.24; 5-item HR = 1.57, 95% CI 0.96-2.54). With the 5-item instrument, men who reported mobbing had a higher risk of incident CVD (HR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.01-3.09), while no association was observed for women (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.38-2.91). There was no difference in risks between men and women with the single-item instrument. No association between mobbing and incident hypertension and arterial stiffness was seen.

conclusionsOur results show an indication of an increased risk of incident CVD for those mobbed at baseline when using the whole study population. Differences in risks between men and women when using the five-item instrument may be due to the instrument itself. Still, it is essential to detect or prevent workplace mobbing, and if present, to apply an intervention to halt it in order to minimize its adverse effects on CVD.

Indexed as

Arterial stiffnessBullyingCardiovascular diseasesHypertensionOccupational healthWorkplace mobbing

Identifiers

PMID32536961
PMCPMC7291638
OpenAlexW3035363275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.