↓ Skip to main content

Reproductive disorders in hairdressers and cosmetologists: a meta-analytical approach

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Occupational Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reproductive disorders in hairdressers and cosmetologists: a meta-analytical approach
Published in
Journal of Occupational Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1539/joh.15-0068-ra
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Bernard Henrotin, Cyndie Picot, Myriam Bouslama, Dorothée Collot-Fertey, Anca Radauceanu, Marie-thérèse Labro, Béatrice Larroque, Alain-Claude Roudot, Nessryne Sater, Mostafa Ould Elhkim, Dominique Lafon

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and to use a meta-analytical approach to assess quantitatively the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in hairdressers and cosmetologists. A systematic literature search up to 1 February 2012 was carried out using major bibliographic databases, grey literature, contacts with research teams working on the subject, review papers and reference lists of selected articles. Observational studies reporting measures of effects in relation with body care (hairdressers, cosmetologists, etc.) and reproductive disorders were included. Study quality was assessed by three reviewers. The estimated risk ratios (RR) from all studies reporting on identical outcomes were combined using an average of logarithm transformation of estimated RR weighted by their inverted variance. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test. To explore the sources of heterogeneity, several sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were conducted based on study quality, country, study period, alcohol consumption, smoking habit, jobs and control populations. Nineteen studies were selected and reviewed in-depth. The combined risk ratios (RRcs) of five reproductive outcomes were calculated and found to be significantly increased for four outcomes: time to pregnancy, which had an RRc of 1.11 (95% CI: 1.03-1.19); premature birth, which had an RRc of 1.05 (95% CI: 0.99-1.11); small for gestational age, which had an RRc of 1.24 (95 CI%: 1.10-1.41); low birth weight, which had an RRc of 1.21 (95% CI: 1.06-1.39); and embryonic and fetal losses, which had an RRc of 1.19 (95% CI: 1.03-1.38). This work confirms a weak increase in risk of some reproductive disorders in female hairdressers/cosmetologists. However, the evidence level is rather weak, and a causal association between job and reproductive outcomes cannot be asserted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 19 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,730,038
of 25,663,438 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Health
#112
of 635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,795
of 398,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Health
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,663,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them