ArticleJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England)2020
A kinematic posture analysis of neurological assistants in their daily working practice-a pilot study.
Article in Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Work related musculoskeletal stress among residents of internal medicine on cardiological wards in their daily working practice - a kinematic and ergonomic analysis.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Reliability and Accuracy of Standard Reference Procedures for Measurements of Trunk and Arm Postures in Ergonomics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Correction: A kinematic posture analysis of neurological assistants in their daily working practice-a pilot study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2023Article
- Wearable Motion Capture Devices for the Prevention of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Ergonomics-An Overview of Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Opportunities.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this pilot study was to analyze postures during the work of neurologists with respect to their occupational activities.
methodsA total data material of 64.8 h (3885.74 min) of nine (three m/six f) neurologists (assistant physicians) was collected. Kinematic data were collected using the CUELA system (electro-goniometry). In addition, the occupational tasks performed on-site were subject to a detailed objective activity analysis. All activities were assigned to the categories "Office activities" (I), "Measures on patients" (II) and "Other activities" (III). The angle values of each body region (evaluation parameters) were evaluated according to ergonomic ISO standards.
resultsOnly 3.4% of the working hours were spent with (II), while 50.8% of time was spent with (I) and 45.8% with (III). All tasks of category (II) revealed an increased ergonomic risk to the head, neck, trunk and back areas. During category (I) especially neck and back movements in the sagittal plane showed higher ergonomic risk levels.
conclusionDespite frequently performed awkward body positions in (II), the ergonomic risk is considered as rather low, since the percentage time share totaled only 3.4%. As a result, "Office activities" have been detected as high predictor to cause stress load on the musculoskeletal system in the daily work of neurologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.