4.7 Review

Is shift work associated with a higher risk of overweight or obesity? A systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 1956-1971

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyy079

关键词

shift work; overweight; obesity; meta-analysis; prevention

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China [2016YXMS215]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: An increasing number of original studies suggest that exposure to shift work could be associated with the risk of overweight and obesity, but the results remain conflicted and inconclusive. This study aimed to quantitatively synthesize available epidemiological evidence on the association between shift work and the risk of overweight and obesity by a meta-analysis. Methods: The authors searched PubMed, Embase and the reference lists of all included studies up to April 2017, with a verification search in December 2017. Inclusion criteria were original studies that reported odds ratios, relative risks or hazard ratios (ORs, RRs or HRs, respectively) of at least one outcome of overweight or obesity. Summary risk estimates were calculated by random-effect models. Results: Twenty-six studies (7 cohort studies, 18 cross-sectional studies and 1 case-control study) involving 311 334 participants were identified. Among these studies, the cut-off points of overweight and obesity varied greatly, so the heterogeneity was substantial; however, the results were stable. Shift work was found to be positively associated with the risk of overweight [RR: 1.25; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.08-1.44] and obesity (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.12-1.22). Conclusions: Individuals involved in shift work are more likely to become overweight or obese. Appropriate preventive interventions in the organization of shift schedules according to ergonomic criteria would allow shift workers to avoid potential health impairment.

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

4.7
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