ReviewJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2024
Bridging the knowledge gap! Health outcomes in informal e-waste workers.
Review in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- Anaemia, anthropometric status and associated factors among electronic waste recyclers, women and children residents of Agbogbloshie, Ghana.Discover public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Minimizing the Dermatological Consequences of Exposure to E-waste.Indian dermatology online journal · 2025Article
- Integrative Modeling of Urinary Metabolomics and Metal Exposure Reveals Systemic Impacts of Electronic Waste in Exposed Populations.Metabolites · 2025Article
- Health Effects of Heavy Metal Exposure Among E-waste Workers and Community-dwelling Adults in Thailand: A Cross-sectional Study.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Blood Metabolome and Exposome Analysis, Annotation, and Interpretation in E-Waste Workers.Metabolites · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough several studies analyzed the impact of e-waste recycling on human health, most publications did not differ between e-waste workers and bystanders, such as residents. This could lead to an underestimation of health effects in workers. In addition, frequently reported surrogate findings do not properly reflect clinical significant health outcomes. The aim of this review was to analyze the direct health effects of informal e-waste recycling in informal e-waste workers.
methodsAccording to PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched 3 databases (Embase®, PubMed®, Web of Science) for studies from low- and middle-income countries published in German or English between 1980 and 1 November 2021. Of the 2613 hits, 26 studies (cross-sectional, longitudinal and case-control studies) met the specified criteria and were included. We categorized the results into hormonal, respiratory, renal, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal health and general symptoms in informal e-waste workers.
resultsExposure to e-waste was associated with altered lipid metabolism, thyroid hormonal imbalances, impaired fertility, renal dysfunction, increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms, asthma, cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension, musculoskeletal pain, injuries in up to 89% and skin disorders in up to 87.5-100% of e-waste workers.
conclusionDue to inconsistent findings, weak associations or poor study quality, it has rarely been possible to establish a causal relationship between informal e-waste work and health effects, except for injuries or skin conditions. Besides high-quality studies, a collective national and international political focus on e-waste disposal is needed.
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.