Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18244957›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review.

Kari-Pekka Martimo, Jos Verbeek, Jaro Karppinen, Andrea D Furlan, Esa-Pekka Takala, P Paul F M Kuijer, Merja Jauhiainen, Eira Viikari-Juntura

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 184 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. An Exploration of the Influence of Non-Biomechanical Factors on Lifting-Related LBP.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Back College for nurses - an evaluation of intermediate effects.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2019
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kari-Pekka MartimoMusculoskeletal Disorders Group, Centre of Expertise for Health and Work Ability, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland. kari-pekka.martimo@ttl.fi
Jos Verbeek
Jaro Karppinen
Andrea D Furlan
Esa-Pekka Takala
P Paul F M Kuijer
Merja Jauhiainen
Eira Viikari-Juntura
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health · FIInstitute for Work & Health · CAUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group's specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005. REVIEW

methodsThe primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent control group. Interventions aimed to modify techniques for lifting and handling heavy objects or patients and including measurements for back pain, consequent disability, or sick leave as the main outcome were considered for the review. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and methodological quality of those included. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar interventions. We used odds ratios and effect sizes to combine the results in a meta-analysis. Finally, we compared the conclusions of the primary and secondary analyses.

resultsSix randomised trials and five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomised trials and all cohort studies were labelled as high quality. Eight studies looked at lifting and moving patients, and three studies were conducted among baggage handlers or postal workers. Those in control groups received no intervention or minimal training, physical exercise, or use of back belts. None of the comparisons in randomised trials (17,720 participants) yielded significant differences. In the secondary analysis, none of the cohort studies (772 participants) had significant results, which supports the results of the randomised trials.

conclusionsThere is no evidence to support use of advice or training in working techniques with or without lifting equipment for preventing back pain or consequent disability. The findings challenge current widespread practice of advising workers on correct lifting technique.

Indexed as

LiftingBack PainCounselingHumansPatient Education as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID18244957
PMCPMC2249682
OpenAlexW2132446611

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.