Wu · Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine 2022 · umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses · n=8 systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Shift work and health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies.

Cited 81 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational epidemiological studies

PubMed 34473048 · doi:10.5664/jcsm.9642 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Authors conducted an umbrella review searching MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Embase through April 25, 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42020188537). They identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies evaluating associations between shift work and health outcomes. For each included review, they evaluated summary effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals, 95% prediction intervals, between-study heterogeneity, small-study effects, and excess-significance bias to classify evidence validity.

What was found

Eight systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering 16 associations were included. Highly suggestive evidence was reported for associations between shift work and myocardial infarction (ever vs. never) and incident diabetes mellitus (per 5-year increment). Suggestive evidence was found for shift work (ever vs. never) and incident diabetes mellitus. Evidence was weak for prostate cancer incidence (ever vs. never; rotating night shift vs. daytime) and colorectal cancer incidence (longest vs. shortest duration). The abstract reports no numerical effect sizes or confidence intervals.

Why it matters

This review distinguishes between well-supported cardiometabolic risks (myocardial infarction and diabetes) and less substantiated oncologic associations in shift work epidemiology, helping prioritize clinical and occupational health interventions.

Limits

The underlying evidence comes entirely from observational epidemiological studies prone to confounding. Numerical risk estimates, participant sample sizes, and detailed definitions of shift schedules or exposure durations are omitted in the abstract.

Cited by