Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39293853›Full record

ReviewEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2024

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 in Europe: a review.

Sarah Rhodes, Sarah Beale, Sarah Daniels, Matthew Gittins, William Mueller, Damien McElvenny, Martie van Tongeren

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sarah RhodesDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Sarah.A.Rhodes@manchester.ac.uk.
Sarah BealeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Sarah DanielsDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Matthew GittinsDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
William MuellerInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.
Damien McElvennyDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Martie van TongerenDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWorkplace features such as ventilation, temperature and the extent of contact are all likely to relate to personal risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Occupations relating to healthcare, social care, education, transport and food production and retail are thought to have increased risks, but the extent to which these risks are elevated and how they have varied over time is unclear.

methodsWe searched for population cohort studies conducted in Europe that compared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes between two or more different occupational groups. Data were extracted on relative differences between occupational groups, split into four time-periods corresponding to pandemic waves.

resultsWe included data from 17 studies. 11 studies used SARS-CoV-2 as their outcome measure and six used COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. During waves one and two, the majority of studies saw elevated risks in the five groups that we looked at. Only seven studies used data from wave three onwards. Elevated risks were observed in waves three and four for social care and education workers in some studies.

conclusionsEvidence relating to occupational differences in COVID-19 outcomes in Europe largely focuses on the early part of the pandemic. There is consistent evidence that the direction and magnitude of differences varied with time. Workers in the healthcare, transport and food production sectors saw highly elevated risks in the early part of the pandemic in the majority of studies but this did not appear to continue. There was evidence that elevated risks of infection in the education and social care sectors may have persisted.

Indexed as

COVID-19OccupationsEuropeHumansOccupational ExposureOccupational HealthRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2Workplace

Identifiers

PMID39293853
PMCPMC11409055

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.