Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29796982›Full record

SynthesisJournal of occupational rehabilitation2019

Workplace-Based Rehabilitation of Upper Limb Conditions: A Systematic Review.

Munira Hoosain, Susan de Klerk, Marlette Burger

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Socio-economic disparities and returning to work following an injury.Israel journal of health policy research · 2020
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Munira HoosainDivision Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa. munirahoosain@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4664-4832
Susan de KlerkDivision Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Marlette BurgerDivision Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Stellenbosch University · ZAWestern Cape Department of Health · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The objective of this systematic review was to identify, collate and analyse the current available evidence on the effectiveness of workplace-based rehabilitative interventions in workers with upper limb conditions on work performance, pain, absenteeism, productivity and other outcomes. Methods We searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information, CINAHL, OTSeeker and PEDro with search terms in four broad areas: upper limb, intervention, workplace and clinical trial (no date limits). Studies including neck pain only or musculoskeletal pain in other areas were not included. Results Initial search located 1071 articles, of which 80 were full text reviewed. Twenty-eight articles were included, reporting on various outcomes relating to a total of seventeen studies. Nine studies were of high methodological quality, seven of medium quality, and one of low quality. Studies were sorted into intervention categories: Ergonomic controls (n = 3), ergonomic training and workstation adjustments (n = 4), exercise and resistance training (n = 6), clinic-based versus workplace-based work hardening (n = 1), nurse case manager training (n = 1), physiotherapy versus Feldenkrais (n = 1), and ambulant myofeedback training (n = 1). The largest body of evidence supported workplace exercise programs, with positive effects for ergonomic training and workstation adjustments, and mixed effects for ergonomic controls. Ambulant myofeedback training had no effect. The remaining three categories had positive effects in the single study on each intervention. Conclusion While there is substantial evidence for workplace exercise programs, other workplace-based interventions require further high quality research. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017059708.

Indexed as

AdultErgonomicsExercise TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMusculoskeletal DiseasesOccupational InjuriesOccupational TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUpper ExtremityOccupational healthUpper extremityWorkplace rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID29796982
OpenAlexW2804716685

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.