Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39169894›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2024

The effectiveness of a dynamic seat cushion in preventing neck and low-back pain among high-risk office workers: a 6-month cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Sirinant Channak, Erwin M Speklé, Allard J van der Beek, Prawit Janwantanakul

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sirinant Channak
Erwin M Speklé
Allard J van der Beek
Prawit JanwantanakulDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand. prawit.j@chula.ac.th.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study evaluated the effectiveness of the promotion of postural shift intervention using a dynamic seat cushion on the 6-month incidence of neck and low-back pain among high-risk office workers.

methodsIn a cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT), 133 office workers were randomly assigned, at cluster level, to intervention (N=67) and control (N=66) groups. The intervention group received a dynamic seat cushion to encourage postural shifts during sitting, while the control group received a placebo seat pad. Primary outcomes were 6-month incidence of neck and low-back pain. Secondary outcomes included sitting discomfort, pain intensity, disability, and trunk muscle performance. Analyses utilized Cox proportional hazard models.

resultsDuring the 6-month period, 15% of participants in the intervention group developed neck pain and 10% developed low-back pain. For the control group, this was 65% and 59%, respectively. Hazard rate (HR) ratios, after adjusting for biopsychosocial factors, indicated a protective effect of the intervention for neck pain [HR

conclusionsThe dynamic seat cushion effectively reduced the incidence of neck and low-back pain by promoting postural shifts. These findings suggest that the key factor in reducing the risk of developing neck and low-back pain is the facilitation of postural shifts during sitting, which can potentially be achieved with other dynamic interventions designed to reduce prolonged and static sitting among office workers.

Indexed as

ErgonomicsLow Back PainNeck PainSitting PositionAdultFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedOccupational DiseasesPosture

Identifiers

PMID39169894
PMCPMC11479679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.