Dataset Information

Miscarriage and occupational activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding shift work, working hours, lifting, standing, and physical workload.

ABSTRACT: Previous studies have indicated that shift work, long working hours, and prevalent workplace exposures such as lifting, standing, and physical workload increase the risk of miscarriage, but the evidence is conflicting. We conducted a systematic review of original research reports.A search in Medline and EMBASE 1966-2012 identified 30 primary papers reporting the relative risk (RR) of miscarriage according to ?1 of 5 occupational activities of interest. Following an assessment of completeness of reporting, confounding, and bias, each risk estimate was characterized as more or less likely to be biased. Studies with equivalent measures of exposure were pooled to obtain a weighted common risk estimate. Sensitivity analyses excluded studies most likely to be biased.Working fixed nights was associated with a moderately increased risk of miscarriage (pooled RR 1.51 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.27-1.78, N=5), while working in 3-shift schedules, working for 40-52 hours weekly, lifting >100 kg/day, standing >6-8 hours/day and physical workload were associated with small risk increments, with the pooled RR ranging from 1.12 (3-shift schedule, N=7) to 1.36 (working hours, N=10). RR for working hours and standing became smaller when analyses were restricted to higher quality studies.These largely reassuring findings do not provide a strong case for mandatory restrictions in relation to shift work, long working hours, occupational lifting, standing, and physical workload. Considering the limited evidence base, however, it may be prudent to advise women against work entailing high levels of these exposures and women with at-risk pregnancies should receive tailored individual counseling.

SUBMITTER: Bonde JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3699369 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Miscarriage and occupational activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding shift work, working hours, lifting, standing, and physical workload.

Bonde Jens Peter JP Jørgensen Kristian Tore KT Bonzini Matteo M Palmer Keith T KT

Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health 20121212 4

<h4>Objective</h4>Previous studies have indicated that shift work, long working hours, and prevalent workplace exposures such as lifting, standing, and physical workload increase the risk of miscarriage, but the evidence is conflicting. We conducted a systematic review of original research reports.<h4>Methods</h4>A search in Medline and EMBASE 1966-2012 identified 30 primary papers reporting the relative risk (RR) of miscarriage according to ≥1 of 5 occupational activities of interest. Following ...[more]

PMID: 23235838

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study aimed to determine physical performance criteria of different occupational groups by investigating physical activity and energy expenditure in healthy Swiss employees in real-life workplaces on workdays and non-working days in relation to their aerobic capacity (VO2max). In this cross-sectional study, 337 healthy and full-time employed adults were recruited. Participants were classified (nine categories) according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 1988 and merged into three groups with low-, moderate- and high-intensity occupational activity. Daily steps, energy expenditure, metabolic equivalents and activity at different intensities were measured using the SenseWear Mini armband on seven consecutive days (23 hours/day). VO2max was determined by the 20-meter shuttle run test. Data of 303 subjects were considered for analysis (63% male, mean age: 33 yrs, SD 12), 101 from the low-, 102 from the moderate- and 100 from the high-intensity group. At work, the high-intensity group showed higher energy expenditure, metabolic equivalents, steps and activity at all intensities than the other groups (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in physical activity between the occupational groups on non-working days. VO2max did not differ across groups when stratified for gender. The upper workload limit was 21%, 29% and 44% of VO2max in the low-, moderate- and high-intensity group, respectively. Men had a lower limit than women due to their higher VO2max (26% vs. 37%), when all groups were combined. While this study did confirm that the average workload limit is one third of VO2max, it showed that the average is misrepresenting the actual physical work demands of specific occupational groups, and that it does not account for gender-related differences in relative workload. Therefore, clinical practice needs to consider these differences with regard to a safe return to work, particularly for the high-intensity group.

Dataset Information

Miscarriage and occupational activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding shift work, working hours, lifting, standing, and physical workload.

Publications

Miscarriage and occupational activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding shift work, working hours, lifting, standing, and physical workload.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets