Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30045952›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2018

Physical work demands and psychosocial working conditions as predictors of musculoskeletal pain: a cohort study comparing self-reported and job exposure matrix measurements.

Ida E H Madsen, Nidhi Gupta, Esben Budtz-Jørgensen, Jens Peter Bonde, Elisabeth Framke, Esben Meulengracht Flachs, Sesilje Bondo Petersen, Annemette Coop Svane-Petersen, Andreas Holtermann, Reiner Rugulies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Construction of a musculoskeletal job-exposure matrix in Korea.Annals of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cohort Profile: the Work Environment and Health in Denmark study.International journal of epidemiology · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Ida E H MadsenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-3635-3900
Nidhi GuptaNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Esben Budtz-JørgensenDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens Peter BondeDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Elisabeth FramkeNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Esben Meulengracht FlachsDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sesilje Bondo PetersenDepartment of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Annemette Coop Svane-PetersenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas HoltermannNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Reiner RuguliesNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDetermining exposure to occupational factors by workers' job titles is extensively used in epidemiological research. However, the correspondence of findings regarding associations to health between job exposure matrices (JEMs) and individual-level exposure data is largely unknown. We set out to examine the prospective associations of physical work demands and psychosocial working conditions with musculoskeletal pain, comparing JEMs with individual-level self-reported exposures.

methodsWe analysed data of 8132 participants from the Work Environment and Health in Denmark cohort study. Using random intercept multilevel modelling, we constructed age-specific and sex-specific JEMs estimating predicted exposures in job groups. We analysed associations between working conditions (individual and JEM level) at baseline and musculoskeletal pain at follow-up using multilevel modelling stratified by sex, adjusting for age, education and baseline pain.

resultsAny consistent associations present in the individual-level analysis were also found in the JEM-level analysis. Higher pain levels at follow-up was seen for employees with higher baseline physical work demands, women exposed to violence and men with lower decision authority, whether measured at the individual or JEM level. Higher JEM-level quantitative demands were associated with less pain, but no association was seen at the individual level.

conclusionsWe found predominately comparable prospective associations between working conditions and pain, whether using JEMs or individual level exposures, with the exception of quantitative demands. The results suggest that, with few notable exceptions, findings obtained using JEMs may be comparable with those obtained when using self-reported exposures.

Indexed as

Physical ExertionAdolescentAdultCohort StudiesDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultilevel AnalysisMusculoskeletal PainOccupational ExposureProspective StudiesRisk FactorsViolenceWorkplaceergonomicslongitudinal studiesmusculoskeletalorganisation of workstress

Identifiers

PMID30045952
PMCPMC6166595

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.