4.5 Article

Calculation of the benchmark duration of shift work associated with the development of impaired glucose metabolism: a 14-year cohort study on 7104 male workers

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 67, 期 8, 页码 532-537

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oem.2009.050971

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [17 590 508]
  2. Kashiwado Memorial Foundation for Medical Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this study was to calculate the benchmark doses (BMD) and their 95% lower confidence boundary (BMDL) for the threshold number of years of shift work associated with a relative increase in haemoglobin A1c (HbA(1c)), an index of glucose metabolism. Methods A 14-year prospective cohort study was conducted in male workers at a Japanese steel company (n=7104) who had received annual health check-ups between 1991 and 2005. The endpoints were either a 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% or 30% increase in HbA(1c) levels during the observation period, compared to HbA(1c) at entry to the study. The associations between years of shift work and increases in HbA(1c) were investigated using pooled logistic regression, adjusted for age, body mass index, mean arterial pressure, total serum cholesterol, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, uric acid, drinking habits, smoking habits and habitual exercise. Results The BMDL/BMD for years of shift work were calculated using benchmark responses (BMRs) of 5% or 10% and parameters for duration of shift work and other covariates. Assuming a mean age of 53 years in workers aged 50 years or older, the BMDL/BMD for years of shift work with a BMR of 5% were 17.8/23.9 (>= 15%), 15.7/18.7 (>= 20%), 18.9/22.7 (>= 25%) and 25.2/31.7 (>= 30%). With a BMR of 10%, the respective values were 29.5/39.7 (>= 15%), 24.3/28.9 (>= 20%), 27.3/32.7 (>= 25%) and 34.1/42.9 (>= 30%). Conclusion These results suggest that special attention should be paid to middle-aged workers whose years of shift work exceeds these threshold times.

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