Prevalence of latex allergy in dental professionals - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 0.9 4区医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Community dental health Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1922/CDH_00068Vaiude06

A P Vaiude, A Jawdekar, L N Mistry

{"title":"Prevalence of latex allergy in dental professionals - A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"A P Vaiude, A Jawdekar, L N Mistry","doi":"10.1922/CDH_00068Vaiude06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Despite concerns such as allergic dermatitis and bans recommended by health authorities, latex gloves are used by dental professionals in many countries. There are published reports of the prevalence of latex allergy in health professionals including dental professionals; however, no systematic review and meta-analysis is available.Objectives: To determine the prevalence of latex allergy in dental professionals.Method: Two researchers independently searched articles using appropriate keyword combinations in three search engines; PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for observational studies on latex allergy in dental professionals reported in English or where complete translations in English were included. Percentage prevalence of latex allergy was the variable of interest. The risk of bias was assessed using the Hoy et al. (2012) tool and publication bias using a funnel plot.Results: From 435 possible sources, a total of 14 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. The prevalence of latex allergy, based on 6302 participants was 10.37% (95% CI: 7.31 to 13.88). Heterogeneity (I2) was high (94.13%); hence, REM was used. There was moderate risk of bias across studies and minimal publication bias. GRADE analysis indicated that the evidence was uncertain.Conclusions: The prevalence of latex allergy in dental professionals is about 10.37%. Evidence is of low quality due to high heterogeneity.","PeriodicalId":10647,"journal":{"name":"Community dental health","volume":" ","pages":"202-207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community dental health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_00068Vaiude06","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Despite concerns such as allergic dermatitis and bans recommended by health authorities, latex gloves are used by dental professionals in many countries. There are published reports of the prevalence of latex allergy in health professionals including dental professionals; however, no systematic review and meta-analysis is available.

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of latex allergy in dental professionals.

Method: Two researchers independently searched articles using appropriate keyword combinations in three search engines; PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for observational studies on latex allergy in dental professionals reported in English or where complete translations in English were included. Percentage prevalence of latex allergy was the variable of interest. The risk of bias was assessed using the Hoy et al. (2012) tool and publication bias using a funnel plot.

Results: From 435 possible sources, a total of 14 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis. The prevalence of latex allergy, based on 6302 participants was 10.37% (95% CI: 7.31 to 13.88). Heterogeneity (I2) was high (94.13%); hence, REM was used. There was moderate risk of bias across studies and minimal publication bias. GRADE analysis indicated that the evidence was uncertain.

Conclusions: The prevalence of latex allergy in dental professionals is about 10.37%. Evidence is of low quality due to high heterogeneity.

查看原文本刊更多论文

牙科专业人员中乳胶过敏的流行率--系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：尽管存在过敏性皮炎等问题，卫生部门也建议禁止使用乳胶手套，但许多国家的牙科专业人员仍在使用乳胶手套。关于包括牙科专业人员在内的卫生专业人员中乳胶过敏症的流行率，已有公开报道；但目前尚无系统回顾和荟萃分析：确定牙科专业人员中乳胶过敏的发生率：方法：两名研究人员在 PubMed、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar 三个搜索引擎中使用适当的关键词组合独立检索了有关牙科专业人员乳胶过敏的观察性研究文章，这些研究均以英语报告，或包含完整的英语翻译。乳胶过敏的流行率是研究的变量。使用 Hoy 等人（2012 年）的工具评估了偏倚风险，并使用漏斗图评估了发表偏倚：从 435 个可能的资料来源中，共有 14 项研究被纳入综述和荟萃分析。在 6302 名参与者中，乳胶过敏的患病率为 10.37%（95% CI：7.31 至 13.88）。异质性（I2）很高（94.13%），因此采用了 REM 方法。各项研究的偏倚风险适中，发表偏倚极小。GRADE 分析表明证据不确定：牙科专业人员中乳胶过敏的发病率约为 10.37%。由于异质性较高，证据质量较低。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Community dental health 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

11.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal is concerned with dental public health and related subjects. Dental public health is the science and the art of preventing oral disease, promoting oral health, and improving the quality of life through the organised efforts of society. The discipline covers a wide range and includes such topics as: -oral epidemiology- oral health services research- preventive dentistry - especially in relation to communities- oral health education and promotion- clinical research - with particular emphasis on the care of special groups- behavioural sciences related to dentistry- decision theory- quality of life- risk analysis- ethics and oral health economics- quality assessment. The journal publishes scientific articles on the relevant fields, review articles, discussion papers, news items, and editorials. It is of interest to dentists working in dental public health and to other professionals concerned with disease prevention, health service planning, and health promotion throughout the world. In the case of epidemiology of oral diseases the Journal prioritises national studies unless local studies have major methodological innovations or information of particular interest.