ReviewRevista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT2020
Medical expert reports in occupational health: a bibliographic review.
Review in Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forensic medicine is a branch of medicine located within both the health and law domains that contributes in issues that include civil, criminal, and labor law. Within labor law, medical expert reports aim to evaluate the capacity of workers and ensure them their rights and duties. This study aimed to discuss the information available on the scientific literature regarding expert reports in occupational health. This is a bibliographic review ranging the period of 2012 to 2018 that searched the MEDLINE, PubMed, and LILACS databases, as well as official documents on the subject. We selected 7 articles corresponding to the initially proposed criteria and read them thoroughly. This allowed us to establish 3 main themes corresponding to the study results: 1) The importance of expert reports in occupational health; 2) Hurdles in the context of expert reports in occupational health; and 3) The role of the medical expert in labor lawsuits. Through the selected studies and the evaluation of the initial proposition of this review, we confirmed the importance of expert reports in ensuring workers' rights in occupational health. Moreover, this study allowed the identification of gaps in studies regarding the role of expert reports in occupational health, thus more research should be encouraged in view of the great social relevance of this theme.
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.