ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2022
Ergonomic evaluation of school furniture in Slovenia: From primary school to university.
Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the Environmental Health and Safety Status of Schools as a Critical Factor to Sustainable Development.International journal of school health · 2026Article
- Associations between school backpack loading, sitting time and low back pain among schoolchildren in Gaborone, Botswana.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2026Article
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate school furniture is important to prevent musculoskeletal discomfort among students.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the suitability of school furniture compared to body dimensions of students.
methodsA cross-sectional study included a total of 442 students from primary school, secondary school, and university. Nine body dimensions along with five furniture dimensions were measured and equations for mismatch criteria were applied.
resultsIn primary school, differences in body dimensions were more evident among students of different age, while in secondary school and university, differences between male and female students became more apparent. The mismatch for desk height ranged from 100.0% at primary school to 48.0% at university. Similarly, the seat height mismatch was the most evident in primary school (89.7% -94.6%), lower at university (52.0%) and the lowest in secondary school (18.0%). The seat depth mismatch was present among all groups, ranging from 23.1% to 40.4%, and was in general more pronounced in males. Seat to desk clearance mismatch was the most evident among secondary school students. In primary school, seat and desk height were generally too high for most of students.
conclusionsSpecific differences in body dimensions among groups of students of different age and gender were observed and a high student-furniture mismatch was identified in all educational institutions. Implementation of adjustable school furniture, covering at least two size marks, is needed to provide ergonomic and healthy learning conditions and to further enhance the comfort and well-being of students in the classroom.
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.