Premium
Types of ocular injury and their antecedent factors: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
NowrouziKia Behnam,
Nadesar Nirusa,
Sun Yingji,
Gohar Basem,
Casole Jennifer,
NowrouziKia Behdin
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/ajim.23117
Subject(s) - medicine , cinahl , occupational safety and health , psycinfo , systematic review , critical appraisal , medline , poison control , occupational injury , grading (engineering) , injury prevention , meta analysis , occupational medicine , population , human factors and ergonomics , environmental health , nursing , alternative medicine , psychological intervention , pathology , civil engineering , political science , law , engineering
Background Ocular injuries are an important workplace hazard that can lead to vision loss, decreased functioning, and socioeconomic costs. The aim of this systematic review is to identify types of occupational ocular injuries and examine factors associated with these injuries. Methods Four health sciences databases (Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were reviewed to identify evidence pertaining to occupational ocular injuries. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018089876) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). The PICO (Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome) tool was used to support, structure, and improve our search strategy. Results Overall, 12 studies with quantitative Critical Appraisal Skills Programme grading scores were assessed in a systematic review and meta‐analysis of ocular injuries in the workplace. The systematic review identified four main factors associated with occupational ocular injury: (a) use of eye protection at the time of the ocular injury, (b) being male, (c) exposure to biological or chemical occupational hazards, and (d) risk‐taking behavior. Conclusions Differences in risk between countries of origin, occupational sectors, and dates of publication, suggest likely differences or changes in safety procedures. We recommend that employers ensure that safety equipment is tailored to the protection of their specific occupational hazards, and that employees are adhering to safety protocols.