MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283586103 · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02004-4

Prevalence, incidence, and risk factors associated with cytomegalovirus infection in healthcare and childcare worker: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4283586103 on OpenAlexafffund
Safari Joseph Balegamire, Elisabeth McClymont, Agathe Croteau, Philippe Dodin, Soren Gantt, Amir Abbas Besharati, Christian Renaud, Benoı̂t Mâsse, Isabelle Boucoiran

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus research
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Foundation for AIDS Research
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCytomegalovirusIncidence (geometry)Health careCytomegalovirus infectionSystematic reviewEnvironmental healthMEDLINEFamily medicineImmunologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Human cytomegalovirusInternal medicineViral diseaseHerpesviridaeVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is transmitted by direct contact with body fluids from infected individuals. Transmission of CMV in households, particularly those with young children, contributes significantly to CMV infection in the general population. However, little is known about the contribution of occupational healthcare or childcare exposure to risk of CMV infection. OBJECTIVES: To determine CMV seroprevalence, incidence of primary infection, and associated risk factors in healthcare and childcare workers. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched systematically for publications on CMV infection in healthcare and childcare workers until March 7, 2022. Two authors independently evaluated the literature for quality and inclusion in our analyses. The pooled results for seroprevalence, incidence, and relative risk (RR) were determined using a random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was quantified and further investigated in subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot. Statistical analyses were preformed using R version 4.05. RESULTS: Forty-eight articles were included in this meta-analysis (quality assessment: 18 good, 14 fair, and 16 poor). Pooled CMV seroprevalence was 59.3% (95% CI: 49.8-68.6) among childcare workers and 49.5% (95% CI: 40.3-58.7) among healthcare workers, and pooled incidences of primary CMV infection per 100 person-years were respectively 7.4 (95% CI: 3.9-11.8) and 3.1 (95% CI: 1.3-5.6). RR for primary infection compared to controls were 3.4 (95% CI: 1.3-8.8) and 1.3 (95% CI: 0.6-2.7) for healthcare and childcare workers, respectively. The odds of CMV seropositivity were 1.6 (95% CI: 1.2-2.3) times higher for childcare workers compared to controls, but not significantly different between healthcare workers and controls (0.9; 95% CI: 0.6-1.2). CMV seropositivity in both groups was significantly associated with having one or more children residing at home, marital status, ethnicity, and age. CONCLUSIONS: Childcare workers, but not healthcare workers, have an increased risk of prevalent and incident CMV infection, a risk that is further increased with the presence of at least one child living at home. These findings suggest that enforcing simple, conventional hygienic measures in childcare settings could help reduce transmission of CMV, and that special precautionary measures for preventing CMV infection may not be required for pregnant healthcare workers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020139756.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.045
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicCytomegalovirus and herpesvirus researchFrench-language works237,207