ArticleCureus2025
Occupational Upper-Limb Injuries: A Retrospective Review of Outcomes at a Private Hospital in Gqeberha (Formerly Port Elizabeth), South Africa.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background Occupational upper-limb injuries represent a significant burden on healthcare systems and workforce productivity globally. While developed nations have implemented comprehensive workplace safety measures, data from low- and middle-income countries, particularly South Africa, remain limited. This study addresses this knowledge gap by examining injury patterns and outcomes in a major industrial region. Objective To describe the epidemiology, injury mechanisms, and return-to-work outcomes of occupational upper-limb injuries managed at a private hospital in Gqeberha (formerly Port Elizabeth) in the Eastern Cape province, South Africa, between April 1, 2013, and December 31, 2020. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of 334 consenting patients aged ≥18 years with occupational upper-limb injuries treated by the principal author. Data collection included demographics, industry sector, injury mechanism and type, and return-to-work outcomes. Statistical analysis employed descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test for categorical associations, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results The cohort was predominantly male (267 patients, 79.9%) and right-hand dominant (320 patients, 95.8%), with 266 patients (79.6%) under 50 years of age. Manufacturing (117 patients, 35%) and service-sector workers (107 patients, 32%) were most affected. Fractures were the most common injuries (144 patients, 43.1%), followed by tendon injuries (45 patients, 13.5%) and amputations (36 patients, 10.8%). Falls (115 patients, 34.4%) and crush injuries (114 patients, 34.1%) were the predominant mechanisms. Younger workers (18-30 years) had a significantly higher amputation rate, while workers over 50 years showed increased rates of rotator cuff tears and dislocations (p = 0.0025). Return-to-work outcomes were favorable, with 267 patients (80%) resuming original roles; however, 30 patients (9%) experienced job loss. Rotator cuff tears required the longest recovery period (mean 59.3 ± 28.7 days). Conclusions Occupational upper-limb injuries predominantly affected young male workers in manufacturing and service industries. The study identifies specific age-related injury patterns and temporal risk factors that can inform targeted prevention strategies. While return-to-work rates were encouraging, the socioeconomic impact of job loss emphasizes the need for comprehensive workplace safety interventions and injury-specific rehabilitation protocols.
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.