MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are health care providers who work with cancer drugs at an increased risk for toxic events? A systematic review and meta analysis of the literature

2005· review· en· W2590465622 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSafe Handling of Antineoplastic Drugs
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisOdds ratioCINAHLMEDLINESystematic reviewCancerRelative riskCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

6082 Background: It has been well documented in the literature that cancer patients receiving certain chemotherapy drugs are at an increased risk for developing secondary malignancies. This concern has also been extended to health care staff involved in the preparation and administration of cancer therapy. To evaluate this risk, a systematic review and meta analysis of the literature was conducted to test the hypothesis that health care providers involved in the preparation and administration of chemotherapy are at an increased risk of cancer, reproductive complications and acute toxic events. Methods: A structured literature search of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Healthstar was performed from 1966 to October 2004 for human epidemiological studies evaluating the risk of toxic events in health care workers exposed to cytotoxic drugs. Raw data and adjusted odds ratios (OR) reported in eligible studies were combined using a random effects model to calculate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for each potential risk outcome. Results: The systematic review identified 14 studies evaluating the outcomes of interest, 7 of which were suitable for statistical pooling. Due to lack of evidence, we were unable to estimate a pooled odds ratio for the risk of cancer and acute toxic events. However, no statistically significant association was detected between exposure to cytotoxic drugs and; congenital malformations (OR=1.64; 95%CI: 0.91–2.94) and stillbirths (OR = 1.16; 95%CI: 0.73–1.82). In contrast, an association was identified between exposure to chemotherapy and spontaneous abortions (OR=1.46; 95%CI: 1.11–1.92). Conclusions: The results of this systematic review identified a small incremental risk for spontaneous abortions in female staff working with cytotoxic agents. Health policy decision makers should effectively communicate the magnitude of this risk to their staff and implement cost effective interventions for its reduction or elimination. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it