Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41359483›Full record

ArticleWork (Reading, Mass.)2026

Prolonged sitting in office environments: A scoping review of assessment methods.

Adele Behzad, Eunsik Kim, Joon Chung

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Work (Reading, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Adele BehzadMechanical, Automotive, and Materials Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada.
Eunsik KimMechanical, Automotive, and Materials Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5925-4668
Joon ChungDepartment of Aerospace Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8679-9308

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundProlonged sitting in office environments is a major contributor to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), representing a growing concern for occupational health and ergonomics.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to examine the range of methods used to assess sitting postures among office workers, emphasizing their applications, strengths, and limitations.MethodsA comprehensive search identified 42 studies published between 2000 and December 2023 from an initial pool of 167 articles. Studies were categorized into self-assessment, observational, and instrument-based approaches following PRISMA-ScR guidelines.ResultsSelf-assessment methods were the most common (69.05%), capturing subjective reports of discomfort, followed by observational tools (38.09%) for postural risk evaluation and instrument-based approaches (45.24%) utilizing sensor- and vision-based technologies for objective analysis. Several studies combined two or more methods to improve data validity through cross-validation and to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of posture-related risks.ConclusionsThis review synthesizes current approaches for evaluating sitting postures in office settings and highlights methodological trends, gaps, and opportunities to guide future ergonomic research aimed at reducing MSD risks.

Indexed as

Sitting PositionWorkplaceErgonomicsHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesOccupational DiseasesOccupational HealthPostureergonomicsmusculoskeletal disordersposture assessmentworkplace health

Identifiers

PMID41359483
PMCPMC13144663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.