Observational studyScientific reports2024
Comparing risk assessment methods for work-related musculoskeletal disorders with in vivo joint loads during manual materials handling.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical Effects of a Passive Lower-Limb Exoskeleton Designed for Half-Sitting Work Support on Walking.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The validity of observational methods in ergonomics is still challenging research. Criterion validity in terms of concurrent validity is the most commonly studied. However, studies comparing observational methods with biomechanical values are rare. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the Ovako Working Posture Analysing System (OWAS) and the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) with in vivo load measurements at hip, spine, and knee during stoop and squat lifting of 14 participants. The results reveal that OWAS and REBA action levels (AL) can distinguish between different in vivo load measurements during manual lifting. However, the results also reveal that the same OWAS- and REBA-AL do not necessarily provide equal mean values of in vivo load measurements. For example, resultant contact force in the vertebral body replacement for squat lifting ranged from 57% body weight (%BW) in OWAS-AL1 to 138%BW in OWAS-AL3 compared to 46%BW in REBA-AL0 and 173%BW in REBA-AL3. Furthermore, the results suggest that the performed squat lifting techniques had a higher risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders than the performed stoop lifting techniques.
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.