Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17636814›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Manual material handling advice and assistive devices for preventing and treating back pain in workers.

K P Martimo, J Verbeek, J Karppinen, A D Furlan, P P F M Kuijer, E Viikari-Juntura, E P Takala, M Jauhiainen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Disability management outcomes in the Ontario long-term care sector.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2010
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Occupational injuries.Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

K P MartimoFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, Helsinki, Finland, 00250. kari-pekka.martimo@ttl.fi
J Verbeek
J Karppinen
A D Furlan
P P F M Kuijer
E Viikari-Juntura
E P Takala
M Jauhiainen
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health · FIInstitute for Work & Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraining and assistive devices are considered major interventions to prevent back pain among workers exposed to manual material handling (MMH).

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of MMH advice and training and the provision of assistive devices in preventing and treating back pain. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE to November 2005, EMBASE to August 2005, and CENTRAL, the Back Group's Trials Register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT to September 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies with a concurrent control group, aimed at changing human behaviour in MMH and measuring back pain, back pain-related disability or sickness absence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality using the criteria recommended by the Back Review Group for RCTs and MINORS for the cohort studies. One author of an original study supplied additional data for the review. The results and conclusions are based on the primary analysis of RCTs. We conducted a secondary analysis with cohort studies. We compared and contrasted the conclusions from the primary and secondary analyses. MAIN

resultsWe included six RCTs (17,720 employees) and five cohort studies (772 employees). All studies focused on prevention of back pain. Two RCTs and all cohort studies met the majority of the quality criteria and were labeled high quality. We summarized the strength of the evidence with a qualitative analysis since the lack of data precluded a statistical analysis. There is moderate evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective at preventing back pain or back pain-related disability than no intervention (four studies) or minor advice (one study). There is limited evidence that MMH advice and training are no more effective than physical exercise or back belt use in preventing back pain (three studies), and that MMH advice plus assistive devices are not more effective than MMH advice alone (one study) or no intervention (one study) in preventing back pain or related disability. The results of the cohort studies were similar to the randomised studies. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is limited to moderate evidence that MMH advice and training with or without assistive devices do not prevent back pain, back pain-related disability or reduce sick leave when compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. There is no evidence available for the effectiveness of MMH advice and training or MMH assistive devices for treating back pain.

Indexed as

Health EducationSelf-Help DevicesBack PainCohort StudiesHumansLiftingOccupational DiseasesRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17636814
OpenAlexW4250499953

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.