SynthesisPloS one2024
Individual evaluation of fatigue at work to enhance the safety performance in the construction industry: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dynamic models of occupational fatigue: a systematic review for risk management advancement.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Development of an interdisciplinary consensus statement for assessing fitness for work at heights in the South African construction industry: a virtual Modified Nominal Group Technique study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2026Article
- HURMAT: an alternative approach for fatigue diagnosis and management based on ergonomics and human factors.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Mapping the evidence on the assessment of fitness to work at heights: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Contactless Fatigue Level Diagnosis System Through Multimodal Sensor Data.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Influence of Fatigue, Recovery, and Environmental Factors on the Body Stability of Construction Workers.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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
The construction industry is recognized as one of the most hazardous industries globally due to the dynamic on site activities and labour-intensive characteristics. The construction tasks are physically and cognitively demanding therefore the construction workers are prone to work fatigue which compromises safety performance. The evaluation of fit for duty, or fitness for work (FFW) aims to determine if workers are at risk of adverse impacts of ill-health, injury or accidents. This systematic review aimed to critically summarize up-to-date measures and evaluation tools that were employed to monitor work fitness or fatigue specifically among construction workers. Adhering with the PRISMA protocol, three databases were searched from the inception to 2022, with a total combination of 37 keywords, concluding to the selection of 20 relevant articles. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used as the guide for the study appraisal. A total of 20 articles were reviewed, published from 2008-2022. Majority of the studies employed experimental design. The review identified the subjective evaluation scales and objective measurement tool. The subjective self-response questionnaires can be categorized into single dimension or multidimension covering both physical and mental fitness; whereas the objective measurement tool can be categorized into physiological metrics, physical and cognitive performance measure. The available scientific evidence has raised the relevant issues for on-site practicality and potentially guide the formulation of evidence-based guidelines for the FFW assessment in the construction industry.
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.