ArticleRevista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT
Evaluation of underreporting occupational accidents among workers who handle laboratory animals.
Article in Revista brasileira de medicina do trabalho : publicacao oficial da Associacao Nacional de Medicina do Trabalho-ANAMT. 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.
- Spatial Discrepancies Between Health and Social Security Reports as Markers of Potential Underreporting of Occupational Injuries in Brazil, 2022-2023.Public health challenges · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Occupational accidents pose a substantial health risk and represent a critical public health concern. While reporting occupational accidents is legally mandated, occupational accidents are significantly underreported, leading to institutional challenges and obstacles in planning and implementing preventive policies. Objectives: To evaluate how often workers who handle laboratory animals report their occupational accidents at the Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia em Biomodelos/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz and to correlate this rate with their possible causes. Methods: This is an observational cohort study including workers who handle laboratory animals at the Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia em Biomodelos/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Data were collected from questionnaires that these workers filled in and then compared to the accident records reported to the Núcleo de Saúde do Trabalhador (Brazil Workers' Health Center) between 2014 and 2019. We used the Research Electronic Data Capture for data entry and Stata 14 for statistical analysis. Results: Occupational accidents were underreported by 44.8% of the workers who handle laboratory animals at the Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia em Biomodelos/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. The characteristics of those who mostly underreported were women (63.6%), of mixed-race (55.6%), 35-44 years old (53.3%), with a doctorate degree (80%), and permanently employed (50%). The most common types of occupational accident reported in the questionnaires were scratches (17.2%) and bites (13.8%), while the most common injuries recorded were cuts (26.7%) and trips/falls (17.8%). Reasons for non-notification were apparent minor severity (57.2%), unwillingness to report (14.3%), no specific protocol to treat (14.3%), excessive bureaucracy (7.1%), and high occurrence (7.1%). Conclusions: The underreporting rate of occupational accidents is 44.8% at the Instituto de Ciência e Tecnologia em Biomodelos/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Workers' awareness of the importance and compulsory nature of reporting should be raised to reduce this rate.
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.