ReviewHealth science reports2026
Occupational Hazard Among Biomedical Waste Handlers in Low-Resource Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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.
- Occupational Hazard Among Biomedical Waste Handlers in Low-Resource Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Managing biomedical waste (BMW) effectively is a pressing public health challenge, particularly in low-resource settings in accordance with the World Bank classification of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where deficiencies in waste management infrastructure exacerbate health risks. BMW handlers face elevated occupational hazards due to inadequate safety measures, lack of training, and inconsistent use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Understanding these risks is crucial for improving health outcomes and ensuring the safety of these essential workers. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024615074). We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for peer-reviewed articles published between January 2000 and October 2024, focusing on occupational hazards experienced by biomedical waste handlers in resource-limited settings. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled prevalence of needle and sharp injuries, hepatitis B and C infections, and the utilization rates of PPE. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified using the Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of needle and sharp injuries was 26.4%. The prevalence of hepatitis B and C among BMW handlers was 5.8% and 2.4%, respectively. PPE usage rates were as follows: masks at 76.9%, gloves at 84.9%, boots at 19.0%, and gowns at 55.4%. Only 15.3% of handlers were immunized against hepatitis B, and 57.4% had received training in BMW management. Significant heterogeneity across studies indicates variable risk exposures and safety practices. Conclusion: The inconsistent use of PPE, along with low hepatitis B immunization and inadequate BMW training, highlights critical gaps in worker protection. Strengthening safety protocols, expanding training, and improving access to PPE are essential to reduce these risks. Given the substantial heterogeneity across studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
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.