ReviewCureus2026
The Occupational Hazards of Tattoo Artists: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The art of tattooing involves exposure to physical, chemical, and biological risk factors that parallel procedural medical professions. While risks related to tattoos themselves have been discussed in the context of client safety, no summative literature on occupational risks to artists exists in academic literature today. This scoping review aims to characterize and catalogue the scope of the existing literature on occupational risk hazards faced by tattoo artists. This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guidelines. An a priori protocol was developed and registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF). After preliminary searches, two independent reviewers selected literature based on the inclusion criteria on occupational risk factors for tattoo artists. These results were tabulated and examined narratively. Results were categorized based on risk type into five categories: musculoskeletal complaints, biological hazards, sharp instrument injury, psychosocial risk, and chemical hazards. The largest number of studies examined biological risks. This scoping review demonstrates that despite clearly defined occupational hazards, the academic literature addressing these hazards among tattoo artists remains limited and methodologically narrow. The limited existing studies rely on self-reported, cross-sectional designs and focus on biological risks, sharps-related dangers, and musculoskeletal risks, with significantly less attention given to chemical and psychological risks. Future research should prioritize objective and observational methodologies, with consideration made for regionally specific professional requirements.
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.