Cochrane · systematic review · CD010183
Occupational safety and health enforcement tools for preventing occupational diseases and injuries
Mischke, C, Verbeek, JH, Job, J, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
WorkAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 5 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Inspection compared to no intervention for preventing occupational diseases and injuries
Population: firms potentially subject to inspection
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Fatal and non‐fatal injuries in RCT, short‐term Inspection vs no intervention | RR 1.04 [0.9, 1.21] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fatal and non‐fatal injuries in CBA, medium‐term Inspection vs no intervention | RR 0.87 [0.75, 1.02] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Fatal and non‐fatal injuries in CBA, long‐term Inspection vs no intervention | RR 0.77 [0.64, 0.92] | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fatal and non‐fatal crashes, ITS‐level Crash data Inspection vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Fatal and non‐fatal crashes, ITS‐slope Crash data Inspection vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |