SynthesisScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2023
Interventions for preventing back pain among office workers - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The correlation between workplace ergonomics and musculoskeletal complains in Iranian technical and vocational training organization; a semi-quantitative study to provide preventive educational strategies.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of workplace interventions for health promotion.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Review
- Evidence-based interventions to prevent sick leave: a scoping review of reviews.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Effect of training on knowledge, behaviors, and low back pain among marble workers: non-randomized experimental study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Workplace Exercise Intervention to Reduce Musculoskeletal Pain and Improve Functional Capacity in Office Workers: A Randomized Controlled Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBack pain is common in the working population. This systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the effects of interventions for preventing back pain among office workers.
methodsWe searched eight databases and additional sources up to March 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cluster RCT focusing on office workers, comparing work-related interventions aimed at preventing back pain (defined as pain in any part of the spine) to a control condition and assessing back pain and/or work absence. Further outcomes considered were adverse events and participants' satisfaction. We performed both frequentist and component NMA. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using RoB 2 and certainty of the evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE.
resultsWe screened 9809 records and included 24 studies with a total of 7080 participants. RoB was assessed as "some concerns" or "high" for all studies and outcomes. Included studies investigated multicomponent interventions, ergonomics, physical activity, education, behavioral interventions and no/minimal interventions. Effects were mostly not statistically significant and based on low/very low CoE. Physical activity probably reduces days of work absence slightly [mean difference (MD) -1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.07- -0.13], and combining physical activity and ergonomics may reduce back pain intensity (standardized MD -0.41, 95% CI -0.80- -0.02) when compared to no/minimal intervention. A large proportion of participants were satisfied with the interventions, adverse events were rarely assessed.
conclusionsWe observed mostly minor effects of interventions on back pain and work absence among office workers. The practical relevance of these effects is questionable.
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.