Suppr超能文献

接触污水的工人中的甲型肝炎:一项系统综述

Hepatitis A in workers exposed to sewage: a systematic review.

作者信息

Glas C, Hotz P, Steffen R

机构信息

Sozialversicher- ungsanstalt des Kantons Zürich (SVA Zürich), Röngtenstrasse 17, Zürich, Switzerland.

出版信息

Occup Environ Med. 2001 Dec;58(12):762-8. doi: 10.1136/oem.58.12.762.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the scientific literature supports the hypothesis that workers exposed to sewage are at higher risk of hepatitis A (HA).

METHODS

All original papers reporting epidemiological studies published in English, French, or German which reported on the risk of HA infection in workers exposed to sewage were eligible. They were identified by several methods and each original paper was assessed independently with a checklist by two people. Studies were classified according to the strength of their design. Non-eligible studies were also examined to assess the impact of publication bias. If the risk estimates diverged widely, causes for heterogeneity were assessed. A distinction was made between seroprevalence studies based on subclinical HA (defined only by the presence of anti-HA antibodies) and clinical HA.

RESULTS

17 eligible studies were identified. No indication of an increased risk of clinical HA could be found. For seroprevalence the studies with the strongest design suggested a slightly increased risk of subclinical HA with an odds ratio (OR) <2.5. Heterogeneity was considerable and precluded a meta-analysis. Considering non-eligible studies would still decrease the OR.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic review does not confirm an increased risk of clinical HA in workers exposed to sewage. An increased risk of subclinical HA cannot be excluded but the association between seropositivity and exposure to sewage was not strong and became still weaker if publication bias was taken into account.

摘要

目的

评估科学文献是否支持以下假设,即接触污水的工人感染甲型肝炎(HA)的风险更高。

方法

所有以英文、法文或德文发表的报告流行病学研究的原始论文,只要报告了接触污水的工人感染HA的风险,均符合要求。通过多种方法对这些论文进行识别,每篇原始论文由两人独立使用清单进行评估。根据研究设计的强度对研究进行分类。对不符合要求的研究也进行审查,以评估发表偏倚的影响。如果风险估计差异很大,则评估异质性的原因。基于亚临床HA(仅通过抗HA抗体的存在来定义)的血清流行率研究和临床HA之间存在区别。

结果

共识别出17项符合要求的研究。未发现临床HA风险增加的迹象。对于血清流行率,设计最强的研究表明亚临床HA风险略有增加,比值比(OR)<2.5。异质性相当大,无法进行荟萃分析。考虑不符合要求的研究仍会降低OR。

结论

系统评价未证实接触污水的工人临床HA风险增加。不能排除亚临床HA风险增加的可能性,但血清阳性与接触污水之间的关联并不强,如果考虑发表偏倚,这种关联会更弱。

相似文献

4
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
9
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.

本文引用的文献

1
[The sewage workers in Berlin].[柏林的污水工人]
Z Hyg Infektionskr. 1954;139(4):341-71.
5
Health effects among workers in sewage treatment plants.污水处理厂工人的健康影响。
Occup Environ Med. 1999 May;56(5):354-7. doi: 10.1136/oem.56.5.354.
10
Risk of hepatitis A infection in sewage workers.污水工人感染甲型肝炎的风险。
Occup Environ Med. 1998 Aug;55(8):567-9. doi: 10.1136/oem.55.8.567.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验