ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2023
Development and validation of a work-related risk score for upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders in a French working population.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of Work-Related Questionnaire for Upper Extremity Disorders (WORQ-UP).La Medicina del lavoro · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim was to develop an easy-to-use risk score based on occupational factors and to validate its performance to identify workers either having (diagnostic setting) or developing (prognostic setting) upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders (UEMSD).
methodsThis study relied on data from the Cosali prospective cohort conducted in a French working population. Diagnostic status for six UEMSD at inclusion and at follow-up was assessed by a standardized clinical examination. Data on occupational factors were collected through a self-administered questionnaire completed before the clinical examination at inclusion. The risk score was derived from a prediction model developed on data of 2,468 workers included in 2002-2003, and the validation sample is composed of 1,051 workers included later in 2004-2005. The prognostic performance of the risk score was assessed in workers without UEMSD at baseline.
resultsA total of 13% and 12% of workers had a UEMSD at inclusion in the development and validation sample. The developed risk score includes physical, organizational and psychosocial factors at work. In the validation sample, this score had acceptable performance for identifying workers having or not UEMSD at baseline (AUC: 0.60 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.63]), in particular the negative predictive value was high (89%-90%). The baseline risk score showed similar performance for predicting incident UEMSD at follow-up examination.
conclusionThis score can be useful as a first-line risk assessment tool, especially for excluding the low-risk work situations from further intervention by an ergonomist. Further validation studies are needed to determine its performance among various working populations.
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.