ArticleScandinavian journal of work, environment & health2026
Standardizing upper arm movement definitions across observational and sensor-based methods: A Delphi consensus study among European ergonomics experts.
Article in Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMusculoskeletal disorders from repetitive upper arm movements contribute substantially to sickness absence and productivity loss. Despite widespread use of observational and sensor-based assessments, inconsistent definitions hinder comparison across studies and translation to practice. This study explored threshold criteria for defining upper arm movements and static postures across observational and sensor-based approaches and examined conceptual differences between practical observability and biomechanical measurability.
methodsWe conducted a two-round Delphi study following the ACCORD guidelines. We invited 35 European experts to rate agreement on proposed definitions. A consensus criterion was set to ≥75% agreement. A thematic analysis of free-text responses guided definition revisions between rounds.
resultsFifteen (43%) and fourteen (93% retention) completed rounds 1 and 2, respectively. Consensus defined a fast-paced movement as ≤1 second (80% agreement) and static posture as ≥4 seconds with ±5° movements (87% agreement). No agreement emerged regarding the minimum amplitude threshold for defining an arm movement (eg, 10° versus 20°; 53% agreement). Experts' comments reflected a tension between observability, favoring higher amplitude thresholds, and biomechanical relevance, favoring lower thresholds, while highlighting velocity's importance.
conclusionsExpert consensus on time-based thresholds for fast-paced movements and static postures provides a starting point for standardized ergonomic assessment. The absence of consensus on amplitude thresholds highlights the need for field validation studies examining which thresholds capture measurement reliability and prediction of musculoskeletal health outcomes. These findings support efforts toward transparency and alignment in upper arm exposure definitions across research and practice, while acknowledging remaining conceptual and methodological challenges.
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.