Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27649499›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Validity of Questionnaire and Representativeness of Objective Methods for Measurements of Mechanical Exposures in Construction and Health Care Work.

Markus Koch, Lars-Kristian Lunde, Tonje Gjulem, Stein Knardahl, Kaj Bo Veiersted

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Work above shoulder level and shoulder complaints: a systematic review.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Sick leave due to musculoskeletal disorders: A prospective cohort study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Markus KochDepartment of Work Psychology and Physiology, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Lars-Kristian LundeDepartment of Work Psychology and Physiology, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Tonje GjulemDepartment of Work Psychology and Physiology, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Stein KnardahlDepartment of Work Psychology and Physiology, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.
Kaj Bo VeierstedDepartment of Work Psychology and Physiology, National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the criterion validity of a questionnaire on physical exposures compared to objective measurements at construction and health care sites and to examine exposure variation over several working days.

methodsFive hundred ninety-four construction and health care workers answered a baseline questionnaire. The daily activities (standing, moving, sitting, number of steps), postures (inclination of the arm and the trunk), and relative heart rate of 125 participants were recorded continuously over 3-4 working days. At the end of the first measurement day, the participants answered a second questionnaire (workday questionnaire).

resultsAll objective activity measurements had significant correlations to their respective questions. Among health care workers, there were no correlations between postures and relative heart rate and the baseline questionnaire. The questionnaires overestimated the exposure durations. The highest explained variance in the adjusted models with self-reported variables were found for objectively measured sitting (R2 = 0.559) and arm inclination > 60° (R2 = 0.420). Objective measurements over several days showed a higher reliability compared to single day measurements.

conclusionsQuestionnaires cannot provide an accurate description of mechanical exposures. Objective measurements over several days are recommended in occupations with varying tasks.

Indexed as

Construction IndustryHealth PersonnelAdultFemaleHeart RateHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesOccupational DiseasesOccupational HealthOccupationsPostureRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID27649499
PMCPMC5029916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.