Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28969697›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Evaluation of a randomized controlled trial on the effect on return to work with coaching combined with light therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for workers with work-related chronic stress.

Karen Nieuwenhuijsen, Antonius M C Schoutens, Monique H W Frings-Dresen, Judith K Sluiter

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Karen NieuwenhuijsenDepartment: Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. k.nieuwenhuijsen@amc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1218-775X
Antonius M C SchoutensFluxPlus BV, Saal van Zwanenbergweg 11, 5026 RM, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Monique H W Frings-DresenDepartment: Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Judith K SluiterDepartment: Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NLFluxPlus (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic work-related stress is quite prevalent in the working population and is in some cases accompanied by long-term sick leave. These stress complaints highly impact employees and are costly due to lost productivity and medical expenses. A new treatment platform with light therapy plus Pulsed Electro Magnetic Fields (PEMF) in combination with coaching was used to assess whether more positive effects on return to work, stress, work-related fatigue, and quality of life could be induced compared to coaching alone.

methodsA placebo-controlled trial was executed after inclusion of 96 workers, aged 18-65 with work-related chronic stress complaints and who were on sick leave (either part-time or full-time). Participants were divided into three arms at random. Group 1 (n = 28) received the treatment and coaching (Intervention group), group 2 (n = 28) received the treatment with the device turned off and coaching (Placebo group) and group 3 (n = 28) received coaching only (Control group). The data were collected at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was % return to work, and secondary outcomes were work-related fatigue (emotional exhaustion and need for recovery after work), stress (distress and hair cortisol), and quality of life (SF-36 dimensions: vitality, emotional role limitation, and social functioning).

resultsEighty-four workers completed all measurements, 28 in each group. All groups improved significantly over time in the level of return to work, as well as on all secondary outcomes. No statistical differences between the three groups were found either on the primary outcome or on any of the secondary outcomes.

conclusionsLight therapy with Pulsed Electro Magnetic Fields PEMF therapy has no additional effect on return to work, stress, fatigue, and quality of live compared to coaching alone.

trial registrationNTR4794 , registration date: 18-sep-2014.

Indexed as

CounselingPhototherapyAdolescentAdultAgedChronic DiseaseCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansMagnetic Field TherapyMaleMiddle AgedOccupational StressReturn to WorkTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultBurnoutFatigueLight therapyPEMFQuality of lifeReturn to workStressWork-related chronic stress

Identifiers

PMID28969697
PMCPMC5625706
OpenAlexW2761601153

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.