Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40188463›Full record

SynthesisScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2025

Night-shift work and susceptibility to infectious diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bette Loef, Esmee Bosma, Linda W M van Kerkhof, Karin I Proper, Debbie van Baarle, Martijn E T Dollé

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Bette LoefCenter for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health; National Institute for Public Health and the Environment; P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. bette.loef@rivm.nl.
Esmee Bosma
Linda W M van Kerkhof
Karin I Proper
Debbie van Baarle
Martijn E T Dollé

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA growing body of research on infection susceptibility among night-shift workers has emerged, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a comprehensive overview is still lacking. Therefore, this review aimed to synthesize the evidence on the association between night-shift work and susceptibility to infectious diseases.

methodsEmbase and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies published up to September 2024. Studies were included if they comprised a working population, night-shift workers were compared to non-shift workers, and the outcome was an infectious disease. Results were descriptively synthesized for common respiratory infections (flu and common cold), SARS-CoV-2 infection, and other infections. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis.

resultsIn total, 16 articles describing 14 studies among 191 320 workers were included. Based on 4 studies, night-shift work was not associated with a significantly increased risk of common respiratory infections [odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.27, I

conclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis showed that night-shift work was associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but not of common respiratory infections. To address the lack of high-certainty evidence, more studies are needed that apply a prospective design with appropriate adjustment for confounding factors and more extensive information on night-shift work exposure.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesCOVID-19Shift Work ScheduleDisease SusceptibilityHumansSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID40188463
PMCPMC12281634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.