Effects of hand-transmitted vibration on fingertip terminal nerve: A meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundHand-transmitted vibration is one of the most common occupational hazards and is closely related to symptoms of fingertip terminal nerve damage. ObjectiveTo analyze the effects of hand-transmitted vibration on the terminal nerve of fingertips. MethodsWe systematically searched literature about the effects of hand-transmitted vibration on fingertip terminal nerve at home and abroad. The outcome index was the number (rate) of fingertip terminal nerve symptoms reported by the vibration group and the control group, such as finger numbness and finger tingling, and the search period was from database inception to December 2021. The quality of cross-sectional studies was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), and the quality of cohort studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). NoteExpress 3.2 was used for literature management, and Excel 2003 was used for data collection and extraction. RevMan 5.4.1 software was used for statistical analysis, and random effect model was used to calculate the OR value of pooled effects and to draw forest plots. Subgroup analysis was carried out according to the working years with vibration exposure. At the same time, sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding studies with the largest weight and funnel plots were generated to evaluate publication bias. ResultsA total of 3619 articles were retrieved, and 39 articles were finally included, including 29 Chinese articles and 10 English articles; 36 cross-sectional studies and 3 cohort studies. In total, 8399 subjects were studied, including 5673 cases in the vibration exposure group and 2726 cases in the control group. Random effect model was used to merge the included literature. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, hand-transmitted vibration was significantly associated with the self-reported occurrence of finger numbness (OR=8.29, 95%CI: 5.43-12.66), finger tingling (OR=7.50, 95%CI: 4.78-11.77), finger swelling (OR=8.25, 95%CI: 4.06-16.76), finger stiffness (OR=10.71, 95%CI: 3.60-31.87), finger trembling (OR=5.11, 95%CI: 2.60-10.04), hand weakness (OR=11.05, 95%CI: 3.98-30.68), hand sweating (OR=2.70, 95%CI: 1.64-4.43), hand coldness (OR=3.54, 95%CI: 2.42-5.18) (P<0.01). The subgroup analysis showed that the odds ratios of both finger numbness and finger tingling increased in the early and middle stages of vibration exposure (<5 years and 5-10 years of exposure duration）(finger numbness: OR=11.11, 19.07; finger tingling: OR=4.70, 16.55, respectively)(P<0.01), and decreased in the late stage of vibration exposure (10-15 years and ≥15 years of exposure duration) (finger numbness: OR=9.57, 2.30; finger tingling: OR=5.71, 6.00, respectively) (P<0.01). The results of sensitivity analysis showed a stable pooled effect (OR=13.96, 95%CI: 4.85-40.13, Z=4.89, P<0.01). The funnel plot results showed positive publication bias. ConclusionOccupational exposure to hand-transmitted vibration can cause finger numbness, finger tingling, finger swelling, finger stiffness, finger trembling, hand weakness, hand sweating, and hand coldness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».