Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28674139›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Factors associated with return to work among people on work absence due to long-term neck or back pain: a narrative systematic review.

Mamunur Rashid, Marja-Leena Kristofferzon, Annika Nilsson, Marina Heiden

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Association among clinical severity indicators, psychological health status and elastic properties of neck muscles in patients with chronic mechanical neck pain.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

4 authors.

Mamunur RashidDepartment of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Marja-Leena KristofferzonDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Annika NilssonDepartment of Health and Caring Sciences, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Marina HeidenDepartment of Occupational and Public Health Sciences, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this narrative systematic review was to summarise prognostic factors for return to work (RTW) among people with long-term neck/shoulder or back pain.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed through three databases (Medline, CINAHL and PsycINFO) for studies published until February 2016. Only observational studies of people on work absence (≥2 weeks) due to neck/shoulder or back pain were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using guidelines for assessing quality in prognostic studies on the basis of Framework of Potential Biases. Factors found in the included studies were grouped into categories based on similarities and then labelled according to the aspects covered by the factors in the category.

resultsNine longitudinal prospective cohort studies and one retrospective study fulfilled the inclusion criteria. From these, five categories of factors were extracted. Our findings indicate that recovery beliefs, health-related factors and work capacity are important for RTW among people with long-term neck or back pain. We did not find support for workplace factors and behaviour being predictive of RTW.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that recovery beliefs, perceived health and work capacity may be important targets of intervention for people with long-term neck or back pain. However, more high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm the results and improve our understanding of what is needed to facilitate RTW in this population.

Indexed as

Back PainChronic PainNeck PainReturn to WorkHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansSelf EfficacyWork Capacity EvaluationWorkplacemusculoskeletalprognostic factorssick leavework ability

Identifiers

PMID28674139
PMCPMC5734441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.