SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023
Functional Tests Predicting Return to Work of Workers with Non-Specific Low Back Pain: Are There Any Validated and Usable Functional Tests for Occupational Health Services in Everyday Practice? A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Work Ability in People with Musculoskeletal Disorders in Primary Health Care: A Scoping Review of Self-Reported Tools.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Poor Work Ability Is Associated with Workplace Violence in Nurses: A Two-Wave Panel Data Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Prediction of Back Disability Using Clinical, Functional, and Biomechanical Variables in Adults with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The literature predominantly advocates subjective perception of disability and pain as an outcome measure for the functional evaluation of patients with low back pain (LBP). Physical outcome measurements are almost completely ignored. In this systematic review, we focused on physical functional measurements that can contribute to the prediction of patients' return to work (RTW) readiness after sick leave or rehabilitation. Searches were conducted in July 2022 without any time limit in the Cochrane Library, PEDro, PubMed and Scopus databases for functional and clinical tests reliable and applicable in clinical practice without demanding equipment. Two independent researchers extracted the data from the included articles in a standardised data collection form, and a third researcher validated the data extraction. No date restriction was applied. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in conducting the review. We found seven original articles, including six with an impact on predicting RTW. We found four fair and three poor original studies fulfilling our criteria. We found the Back Performance Scale (BPS) and back endurance test to be the most promising tests for occupational health service and the clinical practitioner. Radiation of back pain, with or without neurological deficiencies, had some predictive value in terms of RTW, too. The working conditions vary a lot, which causes inconsistency in the studies and in their interpretation. Functional tests could complete the widely used working ability evaluations methods such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) and are worth considering for future research. Overall, more research is needed in this field. The question of when LBP patients can resume everyday activities and work is not possible to determine with functional tests alone. Psychosocial aspects and work demands must be considered. PROSPERO: CRD42022353955. The study was funded by the University of Helsinki.
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.