ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Work-Related Musculoskeletal Injury Rates, Risk Factors, and Ergonomics in Different Endoscopic Specialties: A Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associated Factors and Latent Patterns of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Digestive Endoscopy Nurses: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Quantifying ergonomic challenges for urologists operating flexible ureteroscopes through artificial intelligence-based posture estimation.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Adaptive Control of the Redundant Axis of a Surgical Robot for Operating Room Workspace Optimization Using Reinforcement Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Ergonomics of In-Office Nasolaryngoscopy: Comparison Between Conventional and Pistol Grip Techniques.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
- Impact of novel lightweight disposable gastroscope and duodenoscope on endoscopist muscle activation: a comparative study.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
- Reducing applied force in colonoscopy using a novel soft robotic colonoscope: Head-to-head study.Endoscopy international open · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries (ERIs) are frequent among gastrointestinal, pulmonary, nasal, and urologic endoscopists, impacting the healthcare system. The present review aims to compare the ERI rates, risk factors, and ergonomic recommendations in the different endoscopic fields. A review was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library for articles based on surveys and published until 10 January 2024. Demographic, work, and ERI data from 46 publications were included, covering 10,539 responders. The ERI incidence ranged between 14% and 97%, highlighting the need of intervention independent of the specialties. The neck, back, and shoulder were the most frequent ERI locations, while gender, age, years of experience, and procedure volume the most common risk factors. Ergonomic recommendations suggest concentrating on endoscope design changes, especially in gastrointestinal endoscopy, to increase the comfort, adaptability of the equipment in the operating room, and workflow/institutional policy changes. The inclusion of an ergonomic timeout guarantees the correct equipment positioning, the neutralisation of the endoscopist's posture, and an indirect break between procedures. Ergonomic training to increase awareness and best practice should be promoted, also using new technologies. Future research should concentrate on intervention and comparative studies to evaluate to which extent prevention measures and newly designed equipment could reduce ERI incidence.
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.