Meta‐analysis on night shift work and risk of metabolic syndrome
Abstract
Summary: This study aims to quantitatively summarize the association between night shift work and the risk of metabolic syndrome ( MetS ), with special reference to the dose–response relationship with years of night shift work. We systematically searched all observational studies published in E nglish on P ub M ed and E mbase from 1971 to 2013. We extracted effect measures (relative risk, RR ; or odd ratio, OR ) with 95% confidence interval ( CI ) from individual studies to generate pooled results using meta‐analysis approach. Pooled RR was calculated using random‐ or fixed‐effect model. D owns and B lack scale was applied to assess the methodological quality of included studies. A total of 13 studies were included. The pooled RR for the association between ‘ever exposed to night shift work’ and MetS risk was 1.57 (95% CI = 1.24–1.98, p heterogeneity = 0.001), while a higher risk was indicated in workers with longer exposure to night shifts ( RR = 1.77, 95% CI = 1.32–2.36, p heterogeneity = 0.936). Further stratification analysis demonstrated a higher pooled effect of 1.84 (95% CI = 1.45–2.34) for studies using the NCEP ‐ ATPIII criteria, among female workers ( RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.10–2.34) and the countries other than A sia ( RR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.39–1.95). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. No evidence of publication bias was detected. The present meta‐analysis suggested that night shift work is significantly associated with the risk of MetS , and a positive dose–response relationship with duration of exposure was indicated.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Working at night is estimated to increase the risk of developing metabolic syndrome by more than 50%.
“Working at night has been estimated to increase the risk of developing MetS by more than 50% [37].”
From Shift Work: Disrupted Circadian Rhythms and Sleep—Implications for Health and Well-being (2017) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 302
- Authors
- Wang, F., Zhang, L., Zhang, Y., Zhang, B., He, Y., Xie, S., Li, M., Miao, X., Chan, E. Y. Y., Tang, J. L., Wong, M. C. S., Li, Z., Yu, I. T. S., & Tse, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Shenzhen Occupational Disease Prevention Hospital (CN)
- Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Tse, L. A.
- Venue
- Obesity Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-05-30
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 709-720
- ISSN
- 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-789X
- OpenAlex
- W2106997306
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 2.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (81273172, 81372964)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Circadian rhythm and melatonin
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- night shift work, metabolic syndrome, shift work, dose-response relationship, exposure duration, NCEP ATP III criteria, sex differences, female workers, non-Asian populations
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Occupational Diseases, Risk Factors, Work, Work Schedule Tolerance, Odds Ratio, Metabolic Syndrome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review