Occupational risk factors associated with lower urinary tract symptoms among female workers: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review was performed aiming to identify the various occupational risk factors of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) among female workers. A systematic, comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify studies published until 24 November 2021, evaluating the possible occupational risk factors of LUTS among female workers. Two reviewers assessed all articles retrieved through a computerised search for eligibility using predetermined criteria. Data on the first author, publication year, country, study design, participants, identified occupational risk factors, outcome variables and main results were extracted from the selected articles. The Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale guidelines were adopted to estimate the quality scores. Overall, our search yielded a total of 16 articles suitable for review. The occupational risk factors identified in the studies were strenuous physical demand and activity, prolonged sitting, occupational stress, shift work, limited use of the toilet at work and other occupational environments (eg, an unclean and uncomfortable workplace, dangerous job and probability of accidents, feeling pressed for time and awkward position for long periods). The findings of this review may raise awareness regarding the risk of LUTS among female workers with these factors. From an occupational health perspective, the implementation of tailored prevention strategies based on these occupational factors may prevent female workers from developing LUTS. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022316728.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".