The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial. There is little consensus on the most appropriate interventions for MSDs. Our objective was to update a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for preventing and managing upper extremity MSD (UEMSD). We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis. 6 electronic databases were searched (January 2008 until April 2013 inclusive) yielding 9909 non-duplicate references. 26 high-quality and medium-quality studies relevant to our research question were combined with 35 from the original review to synthesise the evidence on 30 different intervention categories. There was strong evidence for one intervention category, resistance training, leading to the recommendation: Implementing a workplace-based resistance training exercise programme can help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms. The synthesis also revealed moderate evidence for stretching programmes, mouse use feedback and forearm supports in preventing UEMSD or symptoms. There was also moderate evidence for no benefit for EMG biofeedback, job stress management training, and office workstation adjustment for UEMSD and symptoms. Messages are proposed for both these and other intervention categories.
BACKGROUND: Work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD), repetitive strain injury (RSI), occupational overuse syndrome (OOS) and work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) are the most frequently used umbrella terms for disorders that develop as a result of repetitive movements, awkward postures and impact of external forces such as those associated with operating vibrating tools. Work-related CANS, which is the term we use in this review, severely hampers the working population.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) in adults on pain, function and work-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 31 May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 31 May 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 31 May 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 31 May 2013), AMED (1985 to 31 May 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to 31 May 2013), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; inception to 31 May 2013) and the Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence Database (OTseeker; inception to 31 May 2013). We did not apply any language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. We excluded trials undertaken to test injections and surgery. We included studies that evaluated effects on pain, functional status or work ability.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. When studies were sufficiently similar, we performed statistical pooling of reported results.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 studies (62 publications) with 6,580 participants that evaluated 25 different interventions. We categorised these interventions according to their working mechanisms into exercises, ergonomics, behavioural and other interventions.
Overall, we judged 35 studies as having a high risk of bias mainly because of an unknown randomisation procedure, lack of a concealed allocation procedure, unblinded trial participants or lack of an intention-to-treat analysis.
We found very low-quality evidence showing that exercises did not improve pain in comparison with no treatment (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to 0.03), or minor intervention controls (three studies, SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.37) or when provided as additional treatment (two studies, inconsistent results) at short-term follow-up or at long-term follow-up. Results were similar for recovery, disability and sick leave. Specific exercises led to increased pain at short-term follow-up when compared with general exercises (four studies, SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75)
We found very low-quality evidence indicating that ergonomic interventions did not lead to a decrease in pain when compared with no intervention at short-term follow-up (three studies, SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.22) but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up (four studies, SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.16). There was no effect on disability but sick leave decreased in two studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76). None of the ergonomic interventions was more beneficial for any outcome measures when compared with another treatment or with no treatment or with placebo.
Behavioural interventions had inconsistent effects on pain and disability, with some subgroups showing benefit and others showing no significant improvement when compared with no treatment, minor intervention controls or other behavioural interventions.
In the eight studies that evaluated various other interventions, there was no evidence of a clear beneficial effect of any of the interventions provided.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-quality evidence indicating that pain, recovery, disability and sick leave are similar after exercises when compared with no treatment, with minor intervention controls or with exercises provided as additional treatment to people with work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder. Low-quality evidence also showed that ergonomic interventions did not decrease pain at short-term follow-up but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect on other outcomes. For behavioural and other interventions, there was no evidence of a consistent effect on any of the outcomes.
Studies are needed that include more participants, that are clear about the diagnosis of work-relatedness and that report findings according to current guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal disorders are the most common cause of disability in many industrial countries. Recurrent and chronic pain accounts for a substantial portion of workers' absenteeism. Neck pain seems to be more prominent in the general population than previously known.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of workplace interventions (WIs) in adult workers with neck pain.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched: CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 3), and MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, OTseeker, PEDro to July 2009, with no language limitations;screened reference lists; and contacted experts in the field.  
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), in which at least 50% of the participants had neck pain at baseline and received interventions conducted at the workplace.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Authors were contacted for missing information. Since the interventions varied to a large extend, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) terminology was used to classify the intervention components. This heterogeneity restricted pooling of data to only one meta-analysis of two studies.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1995 references and included10 RCTs (2745 workers). Two studies were assessed with low risk of bias. Most trials (N = 8) examined office workers. Few workers were sick-listed. Thus, WIs were seldom designed to improve return-to-work. Overall, there was low quality evidence that showed no significant differences between WIs and no intervention for pain prevalence or severity. If present, significant results in favour of WIs were not sustained across follow-up times. There was moderate quality evidence (1 study, 415 workers) that a four-component WI was significantly more effective in reducing sick leave in the intermediate-term (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.95), but not in the short- (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.34) or long-term (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.26). These findings might be because only a small proportion of the workers were sick-listed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this review found low quality evidence that neither supported nor refuted the benefits of any specific WI for pain relief and moderate quality evidence that a multiple-component intervention reduced sickness absence in the intermediate-term, which was not sustained over time. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. There is an urgent need for high quality RCTs with well designed WIs.
The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial. There is little consensus on the most appropriate interventions for MSDs. Our objective was to update a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for preventing and managing upper extremity MSD (UEMSD). We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis. 6 electronic databases were searched (January 2008 until April 2013 inclusive) yielding 9909 non-duplicate references. 26 high-quality and medium-quality studies relevant to our research question were combined with 35 from the original review to synthesise the evidence on 30 different intervention categories. There was strong evidence for one intervention category, resistance training, leading to the recommendation: Implementing a workplace-based resistance training exercise programme can help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms. The synthesis also revealed moderate evidence for stretching programmes, mouse use feedback and forearm supports in preventing UEMSD or symptoms. There was also moderate evidence for no benefit for EMG biofeedback, job stress management training, and office workstation adjustment for UEMSD and symptoms. Messages are proposed for both these and other intervention categories.
