. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 May 31.

Published in final edited form as: Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009 Jul 2;35(5):342–348. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1342

TABLE 2.

Relative risks and attributable risk fractions in population of CTS according to industry sectors

Industry sector (NACE code)^a^,^b^,^c	Pe (%)	N (%)	RR [CI_95%]	PAF (%)[CI_95%]^d
Women
1. Agriculture	4.0	80 (9.8)	2.4 [1.9–3.0]	5.2 [3.1–7.2]
2. Construction	0.7	6 (0.7)	2.3 [1.0–5.2]	-
3. Manufacturing	11.5	166 (20.4)	2.0 [1.7–2.4]	10.3 [7.1–13.4]
4. Service industries	49.5	477 (58.5)	1.4 [1.2–1.6]	16.0 [8.9–22.0]
Men
1. Agriculture	8.7	34 (10.6)	1.3 [0.9–1.9]	-
2. Construction	8.2	63 (19.7)	2.9 [2.2–3.8]	13.3 [8.4–18.0]
3. Manufacturing	22.0	115 (35.9)	1.9 [1.5–2.4]	17.0 [10.0–23.5]
4. Service industries	41.8	93 (29.1)	0.5 [0.4–0.7]	-

Note.

Persons working during the 5- year period before the diagnosis; ; Pe (%): percentage in the general population of the Maine-et-Loire area; N (%): number and distribution of CTS incident cases by industry sectors; CI_{95 %}: 95% confidence interval;

Unspecified sector: 1 for women (0.1%) and 3 for men (1.0%);

Non-working persons haven’t Nace code (80 women and 10 men);

range computed using the lower and upper limits of the confidence interval of the RR of CTS in equation (1).