Trial reportJournal of occupational rehabilitation2007
Factors explaining improvement of isoinertial lifting-capacity.
Trial report in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Manual material handling advice and assistive devices for preventing and treating back pain in workers.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- What is the rate of functional improvement during occupational rehabilitation in workers' compensation claimants?Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA clearer understanding of the factors involved in improving lifting-capacity may assist professional health workers to enhance patient's functioning and minimize chronic back pain. However, few studies have examined this association. This study is part of a trial comparing two secondary back pain prevention programs. It aims to identify anthropometric, physical, psychic and demographic baseline variables (baseline model), and over time change variables (comprehensive model), which explain the alteration of lumbar isoinertial lifting-capacity, from baseline to post-treatment.
methodsThe association between these variables' baseline- or change values, and the change of lifting-capacity (PILE-test) over time, were analyzed with multiple regression analyses. Potential variables for the regression analyses were identified within a standardized stepwise selection process.
resultsIn the baseline model, 35.2% of the variance in lifting-capacity was mainly explained by a low baseline score of lumbar lifting-capacity, high body weight and gender. In the comprehensive model, 41.9% could be mainly explained by the same baseline variables, an increase of perceived exertion during the PILE-tests and decrease of fear-avoidance caused by work.
conclusionsThe results suggest that treatments to improve lifting-capacity in individuals with mild low back pain should particularly address the reduction of fear-avoidance beliefs. Although strong conclusions cannot be drawn from this study due to methodological limitations, they may be helpful to assign patients to appropriate and most beneficial treatment programs, as well as to develop specific programs. Fear-reduction may be an important target for early interventions in regard to functional capacity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17978866What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.