ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2022
Occupational recovery of Dutch workers with low back pain.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Where is the patient in the records? Evaluating physiotherapists' first visit in occupational health primary care pathway for low back pain.BMJ open quality · 2026Trial
- Labor market participation among patients referred to occupational medicine with low-back pain: a Danish nationwide register-based cohort study.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular disease and absenteeism in Dutch occupational health: a retrospective study in a regular working population.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- The association of the STarT Back Screening Tool and type of leg pain with low back pain disability trajectories: a prospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a world leading cause of disability and has substantial impact on individuals and society as a whole. The largest part of the societal burden of LBP is caused by indirect costs, including sick leave.
aimsWe aimed to describe occupational recovery and associated costs for workers consulting an occupational physician (OP) with LBP, and to determine to what extent this differs by diagnoses: non-specific favourable LBP, non-specific unfavourable LBP, lumbosacral radicular syndrome (LRS) and specific LBP.
methodsWe analysed longitudinal dynamic cohort data from an occupational health service, representing ~1.2 million workers from various companies and sectors throughout the Netherlands. The OP registered data on sick leave and LBP diagnoses. A survival analysis was performed on sick leave duration to determine recovery and a linear regression analysis on cost per episode, adjusting for sex, age and working hours.
resultsWe analysed 5951 LBP episodes from 5472 workers who consulted an OP, with a median and mean duration sick leave of 95 and 151 days, respectively. The probability of not recovering was 82% at 30 days and 10% at 1 year. The mean cost per episode was €15 350. Specific LBP (€22 999; beta (95% confidence interval [CI]): 16 278 (13 325-19 165)) and LRS (€20 111; beta (95% CI): 13 589 (12 527-14 659)) had the longest and most costly episodes, compared to non-specific favourable LBP (€6745; reference group).
conclusionsWith LRS and non-specific unfavourable LBP accounting for over 83% of LBP-associated sick leave costs, the work-directed care of workers with these two diagnoses deserves increased attention.
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.