SynthesisPloS one2025
Investigation of relationship between occupational exposure to aerosol and sleep problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are various occupational and industrial activities that are associated with the production of suspended particles. Little is known about sleep disturbance caused by exposure to aerosol exposure. Presented systematic review and meta-analysis study aimed to investigate the impact of various aerosols during occupational exposure on sleep. A systematic search in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases was performed until 20 February 2024. Three sets of keywords and their possible combinations were used in the search algorithm. To evaluate the quality and risk of bias in studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools and risk of bias in non-randomized studies of exposure (ROBINS-E) instruments were applied, respectively. The pooled values were also computed by meta-analysis. Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, 23 articles were entered into the review. 9 out of 11 articles with high quality (81.82 percent), 8 out of 9 articles with moderate quality (88.89 percent), and 2 out of 3 articles with low quality (66.67 percent) indicated that aerosol exposure had a meaningful negative effect on sleep among workers in various occupations. Among articles, 69.6% (N = 16) were given a high risk of bias rating, 13.0% (N = 3) were rated as moderate risk of bias, and 17.4% (N = 4) were rated as low risk of bias. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the pooled value of the prevalence in the cross-sectional, cohort, and case control studies was 42.35 (95%CI [34.55, 50.16]), 10.82 (95%CI [6.76, 14.87]), and 35.70 (95%CI [13.96, 57.45]), respectively. Also, the results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled values of the odds ratio in the cross-sectional and cohort studies were 1.82 (95% CI [1.43, 2.21]) and 1.73 (95% CI [1.49, 1.96]), respectively. Totally, most studies indicated that various sources of occupational aerosol exposure significantly affected sleep among employees.
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.