4.6 Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between shift work and metabolic syndrome: The roles of sleep, gender, and type of shift work

期刊

SLEEP MEDICINE REVIEWS
卷 57, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.smrv.2021.101427

关键词

Meta-analysis; Shift work; Shift workers; Rotating shift work; Night shift work; Sleep; Circadian rhythm; Metabolic syndrome; Metabolic disorder; Cardiovascular risk factors

资金

  1. Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences [990735]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a significant association between shift work and metabolic syndrome, with different effects for sleep, gender, and type of shift work.
This study was conducted to investigate the association between shift work and metabolic syndrome (MetS) and quantify the roles of sleep, gender, and type of shift work. We searched online databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science on November 17, 2019. Of the 821 articles identified, 38 observational studies (27 cross-sectional, 10 cohorts, and one nested caseecontrol), conducted on 128,416 participants, met our eligibility criteria. The pooled Odds ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence interval (CI) of MetS in shift-versus day-workers were estimated as 1.14 (1.07, 1.21) and 1.11 (1.06, 1.17) for the unadjusted and adjusted models. This association remained significant only for the studies with a cross-sectional design. There was a significantly higher odds of MetS in the studies conducted only on females (1.13 [1.06, 1.20]) or males (1.12 [1.02, 1.21]). The pooled adjusted OR (95% CI) for the studies without and with sleep adjustment was calculated as 1.14 (1.08, 1.21) and 1.29 (1.06, 1.52). We observed that rotating shift workers had stronger odds of MetS than the other shift workers. In conclusion, our findings revealed the significant odds of an association between shift work and MetS and different effects for sleep, gender, and type of shift work. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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