Prevalence and incidence of hand eczema in healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are considered a high-risk group for developing hand eczema (HE), mainly owing to wet work and contact with allergens at work. To meta-analyse the prevalence and incidence of HE in HCWs, as well as mapping the prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) and HE severity in HCWs. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 2020 guidelines. Published literature from 2000 to 2022 was eligible based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 18 studies were included. Pooled life-time, 1-year and point prevalence of self-reported HE in HCWs was 33.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.3-38.6), 27.4% (95% CI: 19.3-36.5) and 13.5% (95% CI: 9.3-18.4), respectively. AD prevalence was 15.4% (95% CI: 11.3-19.9). Overall, the majority of HCWs reported mild HE. One included study assessed HE incidence reporting 34 cases/1000 person years. Most studies scored low-moderate using the New Ottawa Scale and the pooled point prevalence data showed broad CIs. In conclusion, the high prevalence of HE in HCWs underlines the increased risk and need for preventive measures for this professional group. There is, however, a need of further standardized high-quality studies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".