SynthesisPloS one2026
Global reporting and underreporting of occupational diseases: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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.
- A One Health Perspective on Cancer: A Narrative Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisease reporting is often unreliable and faces many challenges, making it difficult to estimate the true burden of occupational diseases, defined as any disease that is caused by work activities or environment. This study aimed to assess the global reporting and underreporting rate of occupational diseases, and to identify the factors affecting the underreporting of occupational diseases.
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, this study searched Medline (PubMed), CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) database, Dimensions, and Google Scholar in September 2024. Search terms related to reporting and underreporting of occupational diseases or illnesses were used. The selected records were screened, and data extracted using the Covidence software tool. Screening and quality assessment were conducted by two independent researchers and finalized by a third researcher. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42023417814.
resultsA total of 127 studies from 29 countries were identified, all coming from high-income and upper-middle-income countries. The incidence rate of occupational disease varied widely, ranging between 1.71 to 1,387 per 100,000 employees yearly. The highest number of annual cases was reported in the agricultural sector (ranging from 33 to 6,431), followed by the health sector (146-5,508), and then the construction sector (264). Two studies evaluated rates of underreporting, which varied from 50% to 95%. The main factor contributing to underreporting was employee concerns about job security.
conclusionsThe results reveal a significant gap in the reporting of occupational diseases among high-income and low-middle-income countries. Variations in reporting mechanisms across countries were also identified. Our findings highlight the need to establish a national system for reporting occupational diseases that engages employers, employees, and healthcare providers.
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.