Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35922791›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Home office versus ergonomic workstation - is the ergonomic risk increased when working at the dining table? An inertial motion capture based pilot study.

Fabian Holzgreve, Christian Maurer-Grubinger, Laura Fraeulin, Juliane Bausch, David A Groneberg, Daniela Ohlendorf

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fabian HolzgreveInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe- University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 9a, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. holzgreve@med.uni-frankfurt.de.
Christian Maurer-GrubingerInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe- University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 9a, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Laura FraeulinInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe- University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 9a, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Juliane BauschInstitute of Sport Sciences, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
David A GronebergInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe- University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 9a, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Daniela OhlendorfInstitute of Occupational Medicine, Social Medicine and Environmental Medicine, Goethe- University Frankfurt, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Building 9a, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to reduce the risk of infection with Sars-Cov-2, work practices have been shifted to the home office in many industries. The first surveys concerning this shift indicate an increase in musculoskeletal complaints of many employees. The aim of this study was to compare the ergonomic risk in the upper extremities and trunk of working in a home office with that of working in an ergonomically optimized workplace.

methodsFor this purpose, 20 subjects (13w/7m) aged 18-31 years each performed a 20-minute workplace simulation (10 min writing a text, 10 min editing a questionnaire) in the following set up: on a dining table with dining chair and laptop (home office) and on an ergonomically adjusted workstation (ergonomically optimized workplace). The subjects were investigated using a combined application of a motion capture kinematic analysis and the rapid upper limb assessment (RULA) in order to identify differences in the ergonomic risk.

resultsSignificantly reduced risk values for both shoulders (left: p < 0.001; right: p = 0.02) were found for the ergonomically optimized workstations. In contrast, the left wrist (p = 0.025) showed a significantly reduced ergonomic risk value for the home office workstation.

conclusionThis study is the first study to compare the ergonomic risk between an ergonomically optimized workplace and a home office workstation. The results indicate minor differences in the upper extremities in favor of the ergonomically optimized workstation. Since work-related musculoskeletal complaints of the upper extremities are common among office workers, the use of an ergonomically optimized workstation for home use is recommended based on the results.

Indexed as

COVID-19Musculoskeletal DiseasesOccupational DiseasesErgonomicsHumansPilot ProjectsSARS-CoV-2Ergonomic risk potentialErgonomicsInertial motion unitsKinematic analysisRapid upper limb assessmentRULAXsens

Identifiers

PMID35922791
PMCPMC9347120
OpenAlexW4289544800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.