ReviewSafety and health at work2025
Long Working Hours and Dyslipidemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Safety and health at work, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Job stressors and incident lipid-lowering medications in the working population: prospective results from the national French ESPS survey.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- Occupational determinants of national health screening participation: an analysis of the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES), 2007-2023.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
- Combustible Cigarette Smoking, Electronic Cigarette Use, and Metabolic Syndrome in a Working Population.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association of weekend warrior physical activity pattern with dyslipidemia among South Korean workers.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the association between long working hours and dyslipidemia risk, as well as changes in blood lipid levels, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Studies were identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, with data published until October 2024. Observational and interventional studies examining the relationship between long working hours and dyslipidemia or lipid profiles were included. Dyslipidemia was defined based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), or total cholesterol levels. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using fixed-effects models and pooled unstandardized mean differences in the lipid levels were calculated using random-effects models, with subgroup analyses conducted to assess the effects of study design, lipid profiles, and exposure definitions. Results: A total of 20 studies met the inclusion criteria. The resuls of meta-analysis showed that long working hours are associated with a significant 10% increase in dyslipidemia risk (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.04-1.17). Subgroup analyses revealed that the association was stronger in cohort studies (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20) and among individuals with high LDL-C levels (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.01-1.67). Differences in HDL-C, LDL-C, TG, and total cholesterol were observed but were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Long working hours are modestly associated with an increased risk of dyslipidemia. These findings provide evidence for developing workplace-based dyslipidemia prevention programs.
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.