Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32248432›Full record

ArticleJournal of occupational rehabilitation2021

Feature Detection and Biomechanical Analysis to Objectively Identify High Exposure Movement Strategies When Performing the EPIC Lift Capacity test.

Daniel P Armstrong, Aleksandra R Budarick, Claragh E E Pegg, Ryan B Graham, Steven L Fischer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of occupational rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel P ArmstrongDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4614-5873
Aleksandra R BudarickDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6659-7864
Claragh E E PeggDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Ryan B GrahamDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Steven L FischerDepartment of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada. steven.fischer@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3347-5403
University of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose The Epic Lift Capacity (ELC) test is used to determine a worker's maximum lifting capacity. In the ELC test, maximum lifting capacity is often determined as the maximum weight lifted without exhibiting a visually appraised "high-risk workstyle." However, the criteria for evaluating lifting mechanics have limited justification. This study applies feature detection and biomechanical analysis to motion capture data obtained while participants performed the ELC test to objectively identify aspects of movement that may help define "high-risk workstyle". Method In this cross-sectional study, 24 participants completed the ELC test. We applied Principal Component Analysis, as a feature detection approach, and biomechanical analysis to motion capture data to objectively identify movement features related to biomechanical exposure on the low back and shoulders. Principal component scores were compared between high and low exposure trials (relative to median exposure) to determine if features of movement differed. Features were interpreted using single component reconstructions of principal components. Results Statistical testing showed that low exposure lifts and lowers maintained the body closer to the load, exhibited squat-like movement (greater knee flexion, wider base of support), and remained closer to neutral posture at the low back (less forward flexion and axial twist) and shoulder (less flexion and abduction). Conclusions Use of feature detection and biomechanical analyses revealed movement features related to biomechanical exposure at the low back and shoulders. The objectively identified criteria could augment the existing scoring criteria for ELC test technique assessment. In the future, such features can inform the design of classifiers to objectively identify "high-risk workstyle" in real-time.

Indexed as

MovementBiomechanical PhenomenaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLiftingRange of Motion, ArticularAutomated pattern recognitionKinematicsKineticsLiftingWork capacity evaluation

Identifiers

PMID32248432
OpenAlexW3015009615

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.