Background
Description of the condition
Objective of the overview
Methods
Study procedure
Criteria for considering reviews for inclusion
Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
---|---|
Included reviews searched systematically in at least one electronic database | Wrong research question (wrong PICO question) |
Research question based on PICOS/PEOS | S systematic review |
P workers | Non-systematic review |
E psychosocial stress at work | Published in a non-European language |
O CV morbidity or mortality | Published before year 2000 |
S systematic review | Animal and human experimental studies |
Language articles published in a European language | |
Publication year articles published after year 2000 |
Searching methodology for identification of reviews
(((((occupation* OR worker*) OR (occupational diseases [MH] OR occupational exposure [MH] OR occupational medicine [MH] OR occupational risk [TW] OR occupational hazard [TW] OR (industry [MeSH Terms] mortality [SH]) OR occupational group* [TW] OR work-related OR occupational air pollutants [MH] OR working environment [TW])) AND (((psychosocial[All Fields] AND (“Stress”[Journal] OR “stress”[All Fields])) OR (“stress, psychological”[MeSH Terms] OR (“stress”[All Fields] AND “psychological”[All Fields]) OR “psychological stress”[All Fields] OR (“psychological”[All Fields] AND “stress”[All Fields]))) AND (“cardiovascular diseases”[MeSH Terms] OR (“cardiovascular”[All Fields] AND “diseases”[All Fields]) OR “cardiovascular diseases”[All Fields]))) AND (meta-analysis as topic [mh] OR meta-analysis[pt] OR meta-analysis [tiab] OR review[pt] OR review [tiab]) NOT (letter[pt] OR editorial[pt] OR comment [pt]) NOT ((animals [Mesh:noexp]) NOT (humans [Mesh]))) AND (“2000/01/01”[PDAT]: “2014/01/6”[PDAT])) |
Data collection and analysis
Assessment of the methodological quality of included systematic reviews
Data extraction and synthesis
Methods to measure stress exposure
Results
Literature search for identification of reviews
Description of included reviews
Quality validation of included reviews
Enrolled SRev First Author, Publication year | 1 Internal validity | 2. Overall grading of the study quality (++/±) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.1 An appropriate and clearly focused question | 1.2 A description of the methodology used | 1.3 Sufficiently rigorous literature search to identify all relevant studies | 1.4 Assessment of the study quality | 1.5 Similarities between the studies selected to combine them reasonably | ||
(Belkic et al. 2004) | Well covered (A clear, specific and well-defined question is addressed) | Adequately addressed (description of the data synthesis is missing) | Adequately addressed (a systematic search is done in MEDLINE and with manual searching. Additional databases could be searched) | Well covered (quality evaluation of included studies is done) | Well covered (there are enough similarities between the selected studies to justify combining them; the research question is answered) | ++ |
(Netterstrøm and Kristensen 2005) | Adequately addressed (PICO elements could be more specific) | Adequately addressed (data synthesis and study inclusion and exclusion criteria are not described) | Adequately addressed (a systematic search is done in MEDLINE and with manual searching. Additional databases could be searched) | Well covered (quality evaluation of included studies is done) | Well covered (there are enough similarities between the selected studies to justify combining them; the research question is answered) | ++ |
(Backé et al. 2012) | Well covered (a clear, specific and well-defined question is addressed) | Adequately addressed (data extraction and description of the data synthesis is missing) | Well covered (a systematic search is done in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PSYNDEX, PsycINFO and with manual searching) | Well covered (quality evaluation of included studies is done) | Well covered (there are enough similarities between the selected studies to justify combining them; the main research question are answered) | ++ |
(Eller et al. 2009) | Adequately addressed (PICO elements could be more specific. The used search string or search terms are not available) | Adequately addressed (description of the data synthesis is missing) | Adequately addressed (a systematic search is done in MEDLINE and with manual searching. Additional databases could be searched) | Adequately addressed (quality evaluation of included studies is done; a sensitivity analysis to exclude the studies at low quality is not done) | Adequately addressed (the study inclusion and exclusion criteria are not clearly described in order to evaluate whether the selected studies are similar to justify combining them) | + |
(Kivimäki et al. 2006) | Adequately addressed (PICO elements could be more specific) | Adequately addressed (quality assessment is not described) | Adequately addressed (the systematic search is only done in MEDLINE and manual searching. Additional databases could be searched) | Poorly addressed (quality evaluation of included studies is not there) | Well covered (there are enough similarities between the selected studies to justify combining them in a meta-analysis; the research question is answered) | + |
(Virtanen et al. 2013) | Well covered (A clear, specific and well-defined question is addressed) | Well covered (a detailed description of the methodology used is included) | Well covered (a systematic search is done in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and manual searching) | Adequately addressed (quality evaluation of included studies is not mentioned) | Well covered (there are enough similarities between the selected studies to justify combining them; the research question is answered) | ++ |