ArticlePloS one2025
Inadequate lumbar protection with load weight limits based on body weight percentages: An experimental and simulation study of the weight limits set by the Japanese guidelines for preventing low back pain.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Trends in the burden of low back pain attributable to occupational ergonomic factors among the global population aged 15-64 years (1990-2021): a study based on the GBD database.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Article
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
Work-related low back pain is the most prevalent occupational disease in Japan, with 25% of cases resulting from manual handling of heavy loads. The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan has issued guidelines limiting load weights based on the worker's body weight percentage: 40% of the body weight for males and 24% for females. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of these weight limits in preventing excessive lower back strain and identify potential shortcomings. A total of 20 healthy participants (10 males and 10 females) were included in this study. The motions of the participants while holding loads at specific positions and lifting loads from the floor were recorded using a three-dimensional motion analysis system. The compressive force on the L5-S1 intervertebral disc (IVD-CF) was estimated by simulations using inverse dynamics analysis. The body weights for the musculoskeletal models were set at 50, 70, and 90 kg for males and 40, 55, and 70 kg for females, representing the light, average, and heavy body weights of Japanese workers. The load weights were set at 40% of the body weight for males and 24% for females. Increased body weight led to higher IVD-CF in males, exceeding the safe limit of 3400 N. Additionally, light-weight males experienced excessive strain when holding loads at shin height or lifting from the floor. The IVD-CF for females was lower than that for males because of their lighter body weight and load weight. However, heavy-weight females experienced excessive strain when holding loads at low and distant positions and during lifting. These findings indicate that weight limits based on body weight do not adequately prevent excessive lower back strain, and the nature of the task should be considered to avoid lower back strain.
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.