ReviewJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2025
SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by non-healthcare occupations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating Factors Associated with Employees' Attitudes Towards Work-Related Infection Control Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study from Seven Different Companies in Germany, July-August 2021.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 infection risk by non-healthcare occupations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, several industries were deemed essential. However, information on infection risk in occupational settings outside of healthcare workers and medical staff (HCWs) remain scarce. Thus, a systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compile the risk of infection to SARS-CoV-2 in non-healthcare workers (non-HCWs).
methodsWe screened three databases (EMBASE, PubMed, medRχiv) for studies on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in working population. Several stages of severity (infection, hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mortality) were eligible. Occupational specifications were harmonised according to the German classification of professions (KldB). All reported risk estimators were considered. Studies were analysed for their risk of bias. Results of random-effects meta-analyses were assessed for their evidence according to GRADE. Subgroup analyses were run for 'outcome', 'comparison group', and 'risk of bias'.
resultsOf 9,081 publications identified, 25 were recognised as eligible, mainly describing the first year of the pandemic. For 20 occupations, we were able to carry out meta-analyses on KldB-4-level by integrating all stages of severity. Nine occupations were identified with a statistically significantly increased risk of infection for SARS-CoV-2, four of which had a relative risk (RR) of > 2: Occupations in meat processing (RR = 3.58 [95%-CI 1.46; 8.77]), occupations in building cleaning services (RR = 2.55 [95%-CI 1.51; 4.31]), occupations in cargo handling (RR = 2.52 [95%-CI 2.27; 2.79]) and cooks (RR = 2.53 [95%-CI 1.75; 3.67]). The certainty of evidence of eight results was found moderate or high.
conclusionsThe first systematic review and meta-analysis of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in occupations other than HCWs revealed a considerably elevated risk in individual related services as well as in commercial services.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021297572.
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.