SynthesisJournal of occupational health2021
Effectiveness of fitness for work interventions for workers with low back pain: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of occupational health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of fitness for work interventions for workers with low back pain: A systematic review.Journal of occupational health · 2021Pooled it
- Physical and Social Factors Differentiating Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain Among Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise Workers in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Article
- Low back pain among the working-age population: from the global burden of disease study 2021.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work-related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Occupational status and self-reported low back pain by gender: a nation-wide cross-sectional study among the general population in Japan.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesSafety at work is important for workers with low back pain (LBP). This requires good job design that considers both worker capacities and work requirements, a concept called "Fitness for Work." This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of fitness for work interventions on workers with LBP.
methodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus from 2000 through 2020, using relevant terms.
resultsWe reviewed nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) out of 3052 unique references. All studies were RCTs conducted in Western countries. Some RCTs reported positive findings that fitness for work interventions were effective for LBP in facilitating shorter return to work time and reducing short-term sick leave. However, the results of the reviewed studies were inconsistent; therefore, there is insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of fitness for work interventions. Furthermore, the interventions were not effective in reducing long-term sick leave over a 24-month period. There were consistent findings that fitness for work interventions were no more effective than control interventions on pain intensity, disability, and work ability of workers with LBP.
conclusionsThese results suggest that fitness for work interventions may be somewhat effective in facilitating return to work and preventing short-term recurrence in workers with LBP. However, workers need to carefully manage their condition to prevent long-term recurrence.
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.