The risk of cytomegalovirus infection in daycare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 74 Downloads
The primary aim of this review was to summarize the evidence on the relationship between being a daycare worker working with children and the possible increased risk of cytomegalovirus infection.
We searched the Medline and Embase databases using search strings defined according to the population, exposure, comparison, and outcomes (PECO) applicable to our research questions in order to find studies published since 2000. Two independent reviewers evaluated the search hits using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A manual search was performed to identify additional relevant literature. We extracted the resulting studies and assessed them in eight domains of bias. The pooled CMV seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to the general population was calculated.
After evaluating the 6879 records, six methodologically adequate studies were identified: five cross-sectional studies and one cohort study. The pooled seroprevalence of daycare workers was 59.3% (95% CI 47.6–70.9). The four studies investigating risk of infection indicated an increased seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to a reference population (prevalence ratio, PR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.33–1.77). No study evaluated CMV seroconversions for daycare workers.
Our findings suggest a higher CMV seroprevalence for daycare workers compared to the general population. Notwithstanding the need for longitudinal and intervention studies, preventative efforts are needed. A pooled PR of 1.54 is compatible with a doubled seroconversion risk corresponding to a vocational probability of 50% if the substantial underestimation of the actual occupational seroconversion risk by prevalence-based estimators is considered.
KeywordsCMV Cytomegalovirus Daycare educators Kindergarten teachers Occupational disease Occupational risk
The requirements for authorship have been met by all of the authors, with each author having either been actively involved in the development of the study design (AF, MS, MK, JS, AN, JH, AS), screening the articles (KR, MK, MG, SS), extracting data (KR, MK), evaluation of bias (KR, AS, DK, SS) or in performing the meta-analysis (KR). All of the authors have read and approved of the manuscript.
The Institute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine (IPAS) received funds from the Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare services (BGW) to conduct the study. The study was carried out in cooperation with the research department of the BGW. The funds are provided by a non-profit organization that is part of the social security system in Germany.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melborne, Australia: Veritas Health InnovationGoogle Scholar
- Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018a) CASP Cohort Study Checklist. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASPCohort-Study-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
- Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2018b) CASP Qualitative Checklist. Available at: https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASPQualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
- Elsner G, Nienhaus A (2009) Berufsbedingte Infektionen bei Erzieherinnen und Erziehern in Kindergärten. Zbl Arbeitsmed 59:39–42Google Scholar
- Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Vol 4. WileyGoogle Scholar
- Kuijer PPFM, Verbeek JH, Seidler A, Ellegast R, Hulshof CTJ, Frings-Dresen MHW, van der Molen HF (2018) Work-relatedness of lumbosacral radiculopathy syndrome. Rev Dose Response Meta Anal 91:558–564Google Scholar
- Puhakka L, Renko M, Helminen M, Peltola V, Heiskanen-Kosma T, Lappalainen M, Surcel H-M, Lönnqvist T, Saxen H (2017) Primary versus non-primary maternal cytomegalovirus infection as a cause of symptomatic congenital infection – register-based study from Finland. Infect Dis 49:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Robert Koch Institut (2014) Zytomegalievirus-Infektion RKI Ratgeber. Robert Koch Institute. https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Merkblaetter/Ratgeber_Zytomegalievirus.html. Accessed 20 Jan 2014
- Schober PSJ (2014) Childcare trends in Germany: increasing socio-economic disparities in East and West. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW) Economic BulletingGoogle Scholar
- Scholz H, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Infektiologie (2009) DGPI-Handbuch Infektionen bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
- Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2012) Methodology checklist 3: cohort studies. SIGN, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- Stranzinger J (2017) Protecting the health of pregnant women. Dtsch Arztebl Int 114:504–505Google Scholar
- Stranzinger J, Kozak A, Schilgen B, Paris D, Niessen T, Schmidt L, Wille A, Wagner NL, Nienhaus A (2016) Are female daycare workers at greater risk of cytomegalovirus infection? A secondary data analysis of CMV seroprevalence between 2010 and 2013 in Hamburg, Germany. GMS Hyg Infect Control 11:Doc09Google Scholar
- Van Laethem Y, Dubois J, Braeckman L, Delforge M, Donner C, de Mol P, de Ridder M, de Schryver A, Keymeulen A, Rezette J, Smets K, Naessens A, van Hooste W (2015) Avis du conseil superieur de la sante N 9262: La problematique du cytomegalovirus chez la femme einceinte: Conseil Superieur de la SanteGoogle Scholar