Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33210336›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2021

Estimation of differential occupational risk of COVID-19 by comparing risk factors with case data by occupational group.

Michael Zhang

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Coronavirus Disease 2019 is an Occupational Disease for Teachers: How to Support the Teacher Workforce.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by non-healthcare occupations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 in Europe: a review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael ZhangAdministration Division, Southern Nevada Health District, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7074-1021
University of Nevada, Las Vegas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe disease burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not uniform across occupations. Although healthcare workers are well-known to be at increased risk, data for other occupations are lacking. In lieu of this, models have been used to forecast occupational risk using various predictors, but no model heretofore has used data from actual case numbers. This study assesses the differential risk of COVID-19 by occupation using predictors from the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) database and correlating them with case counts published by the Washington State Department of Health to identify workers in individual occupations at highest risk of COVID-19 infection.

methodsThe O*NET database was screened for potential predictors of differential COVID-19 risk by occupation. Case counts delineated by occupational group were obtained from public sources. Prevalence by occupation was estimated and correlated with O*NET data to build a regression model to predict individual occupations at greatest risk.

resultsTwo variables correlate with case prevalence: disease exposure (r = 0.66; p = 0.001) and physical proximity (r = 0.64; p = 0.002), and predict 47.5% of prevalence variance (p = 0.003) on multiple linear regression analysis. The highest risk occupations are in healthcare, particularly dental, but many nonhealthcare occupations are also vulnerable.

conclusionsModels can be used to identify workers vulnerable to COVID-19, but predictions are tempered by methodological limitations. Comprehensive data across many states must be collected to adequately guide implementation of occupation-specific interventions in the battle against COVID-19.

Indexed as

Physical DistancingAviationBarberingCOVID-19FirefightersHealth PersonnelHumansLaw EnforcementMortuary PracticeOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthPrevalenceRisk FactorsSchool TeachersTime FactorsTransportationCOVID-19infection controloccupational medicinepreventive medicineworkplace safety

Identifiers

PMID33210336
PMCPMC7753309
OpenAlexW3105191551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.