ObjectiveOsteoarthritis of the hip (OA) is a common degenerative disorder of the joint cartilage that presents a major public health problem worldwide. While intrinsic risk factors (e.g, body mass and morphology) have been identified, external risk factors are not well understood. In this systematic review, the evidence for workload as a risk factor for hip OA is summarized and used to derive recommendations for prevention and further research.MethodsEpidemiological studies on workload or occupation and osteoarthritis of the hip were identified through database and bibliography searches. Using pre-defined quality criteria, 30 studies were selected for critical evaluation; six of these provided quantitative exposure data.ResultsStudy results were too heterogeneous to develop pooled risk estimates by specific work activities. The weight of evidence favors a graded association between long-term exposure to heavy lifting and risk of hip OA. Long-term exposure to standing at work might also increase the risk of hip OA.ConclusionsIt is not possible to estimate a quantitative dose-response relationship between workload and hip OA using existing data, but there is enough evidence available to identify job-related heavy lifting and standing as hazards, and thus to begin developing recommendations for preventing hip OA by limiting the amount and duration of these activities. Future research to identify specific risk factors for work-related hip OA should focus on implementing rigorous study methods with quantitative exposure measures and objective diagnostic criteria.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified occupational painting as a human carcinogen based on lung and bladder cancers; however, no specific exposures were implicated. The authors conducted comprehensive meta-analyses of the epidemiological literature on occupational painting and these cancers. The authors abstracted study results and confounder information, and used quantile plots and regression models to evaluate heterogeneity and publication bias. Summary risk estimates were derived and sensitivity analyses performed to evaluate smoking, socioeconomic status (SES), and exposure variables. Where applicable, a Bayesian approach was used to externally adjust for smoking, a major risk factor for both cancers. For lung cancer cohort mortality studies, publication bias and heterogeneity were seen, and earlier studies reported higher risk estimates than later studies. Overall lung cancer summary risk estimates were 1.29 for case-control and 1.22 and 1.36 for cohort morbidity and mortality studies, respectively, and risk estimates for bladder cancer were 1.28 for case-control and 1.14 and 1.27 for cohort morbidity and mortality studies, respectively (all statistically significant). Risks did not differ between painters and mixed occupations. Nonsignificant summary estimates resulted for lung and bladder cancers when controlling for SES, or externally adjusting for smoking in lung cancer studies. Summary risks varied by control source for case-control studies. Residual confounding by smoking and SES, lack of exposure group effect, and publication bias limit the ability of the meta-analyses to explain associations observed between occupational painting and lung and bladder cancers. Given the long latencies for lung and bladder cancers, these weak associations, if real, may not be elucidated through studies of occupational painting today.