Cargando…
The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of viral hepatitis C (HCV) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) compared to the general population. A systematic search for the years 1989–2014 was conducted in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies on hepatitis C in HCWs were i...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4680146/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26438666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2015-102879 |
_version_ | 1782405639413170176 |
---|---|
author | Westermann, Claudia Peters, Claudia Lisiak, Birgitte Lamberti, Monica Nienhaus, Albert |
author_facet | Westermann, Claudia Peters, Claudia Lisiak, Birgitte Lamberti, Monica Nienhaus, Albert |
author_sort | Westermann, Claudia |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of viral hepatitis C (HCV) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) compared to the general population. A systematic search for the years 1989–2014 was conducted in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies on hepatitis C in HCWs were included if they incorporated either a control group or reference data for the general population. The study quality was classified as high, moderate or low. Pooled effect estimates were calculated to determine the odds of occupational infection. Heterogeneity between studies was analysed using the χ(2) test (p<0.10) and quantified using the I(2) test. 57 studies met our criteria for inclusion and 44 were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of high and moderate quality studies showed a significantly increased OR for HCV infection in HCWs relative to control populations, with a value of 1.6 (95% CI 1.03 to 2.42). Stratification by study region gave an OR of 2.1 in low prevalence countries; while stratification by occupational groups gave an increased prevalence for medical (OR 2.2) and for laboratory staff (OR 2.2). The OR for professionals at high risk of blood contact was 2.7. The pooled analysis indicates that the prevalence of infection is significantly higher in HCWs than in the general population. The highest prevalence was observed among medical and laboratory staff. Prospective studies that focus on HCW-specific activity and personal risk factors for HCV infection are needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4680146 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46801462015-12-18 The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis Westermann, Claudia Peters, Claudia Lisiak, Birgitte Lamberti, Monica Nienhaus, Albert Occup Environ Med Review The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of viral hepatitis C (HCV) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) compared to the general population. A systematic search for the years 1989–2014 was conducted in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies on hepatitis C in HCWs were included if they incorporated either a control group or reference data for the general population. The study quality was classified as high, moderate or low. Pooled effect estimates were calculated to determine the odds of occupational infection. Heterogeneity between studies was analysed using the χ(2) test (p<0.10) and quantified using the I(2) test. 57 studies met our criteria for inclusion and 44 were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of high and moderate quality studies showed a significantly increased OR for HCV infection in HCWs relative to control populations, with a value of 1.6 (95% CI 1.03 to 2.42). Stratification by study region gave an OR of 2.1 in low prevalence countries; while stratification by occupational groups gave an increased prevalence for medical (OR 2.2) and for laboratory staff (OR 2.2). The OR for professionals at high risk of blood contact was 2.7. The pooled analysis indicates that the prevalence of infection is significantly higher in HCWs than in the general population. The highest prevalence was observed among medical and laboratory staff. Prospective studies that focus on HCW-specific activity and personal risk factors for HCV infection are needed. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-12 2015-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4680146/ /pubmed/26438666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2015-102879 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Review Westermann, Claudia Peters, Claudia Lisiak, Birgitte Lamberti, Monica Nienhaus, Albert The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | The prevalence of hepatitis C among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | prevalence of hepatitis c among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4680146/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26438666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2015-102879 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT westermannclaudia theprevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT petersclaudia theprevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lisiakbirgitte theprevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lambertimonica theprevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nienhausalbert theprevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT westermannclaudia prevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT petersclaudia prevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lisiakbirgitte prevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT lambertimonica prevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nienhausalbert prevalenceofhepatitiscamonghealthcareworkersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |