ArticlePloS one2023
Effect of relative weight limit set as a body weight percentage on work-related low back pain among workers.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Occupational health risks and working conditions of sanitation workers in Nepal: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Male and female workers suffering from chronic low back pain display different interrelationships between the biopsychosocial variables.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Manual rolling load and low back pain among workers in Japan: a cross-sectional study.Journal of occupational health · 2024Article
- Investigating the characteristics of mild intervertebral disc degeneration at various age stages using single-cell genomics.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA quarter of work-related low back pain (LBP) cases result from handling heavy loads in Japan. The maximum weight male/female workers can handle is 40%/24% of their body weight but has set a constant load weight in ISO 11228-1 and NIOSH lifting equation. The preventive effect of the relative weight limit on LBP has not been clarified. This study aimed to identify the effect of relative weight limits set as body weight percentages on LBP prevalence.
methodsData from 21924 workers were collected via a web-based survey in 2022. The workers were categorized into three groups: group A, "no handling," group B, "handling loads up to 40%/24% or less of body weight," and group C, "handling loads over 40%/24% of body weight." Moreover, they were categorized into eight groups: no handling, 1-5 kg, 5-10 kg, 10-15 kg, 15-20 kg, 20-25 kg, 25-30 kg, and ≥30 kg. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify the effects of the limits set to body weight percentages and constant load weights on LBP.
resultsIn groups A, B, and C, 25.5%, 39.2%, and 47.3% of males or 16.9%, 26.4%, and 38.0% of females had LBP, respectively. The odds ratio (OR) of LBP was significantly greater in group B than in group A and even greater in group C. The OR of LBP among workers handling loads under 10 kg was not significantly different compared to no-handling workers.
conclusionsLBP prevalence was greater in group B than in group A but lesser than in group C. Weight limits based on body weight percentages could not eliminate the factor of handling loads. However, handling loads under 10 kg suppressed LBP. Relative weight limits set as body weight percentages were inappropriate and ineffective for preventing LBP.
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.