4.5 Review

Associations of rotational shift work and night shift status with hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 35, 期 10, 页码 1929-1937

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001442

关键词

blood pressure; hypertension; nightshift; rotating shift; shift work

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background:The reported risks of hypertension (HTN) in rotating shift and night shift workers are controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess the association between shift work status and HTN.Methods:A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Database from inception through October 2016. Studies that reported odds ratios (OR) comparing the risk of HTN in shift workers were included. A prespecified subgroup analysis by rotating shift and night shift statuses were also performed. Pooled OR and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method. The protocol for this study is registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; no. CRD42016051843.Results:Twenty-seven observational studies (nine cohort and 18 cross-sectional studies) with a total of 394793 individuals were enrolled. The pooled ORs of HTN in shift workers in cohort and cross-sectional studies were 1.31 (95% CI, 1.07-1.60) and 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.20), respectively. When meta-analysis was restricted only to cohort studies in rotating shift, the pooled OR of HTN in rotating shift workers was 1.34 (95% CI, 1.08-1.67). The data regarding night shift and HTN in cohort studies was limited. The pooled OR of HTN in night shift workers in cross-sectional studies was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.85-1.35).Conclusion:Based on the findings of our meta-analysis, shiftwork status may play an important role in HTN, as there is a significant association between rotating shift work and HTN. However, there is no significant association between night shift status and risk of HTN.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据