Dataset Information

The relative importance of whole body vibration and occupational lifting as risk factors for low-back pain.

ABSTRACT: AIMS:To explore the impact of occupational exposure to whole body vibration (WBV) on low back pain (LBP) in the general population and to estimate the burden of LBP attributable to occupational WBV in comparison with that due to occupational lifting. METHODS:A questionnaire including sections on WBV at work, LBP, and potential risk factors was mailed to a community sample of 22 194 men and women of working age. Sources and durations of exposure to occupational WBV were ascertained for the past week and personal vibration doses (eVDV) were estimated. Analysis was confined to subjects reporting exposures in the past week as typical of their work. Associations of LBP with eVDV, driving industrial vehicles, and occupational lifting were explored by logistic regression and attributable numbers were calculated. RESULTS:Significant associations were found between daily lifting of weights greater than 10 kg at work and LBP, troublesome LBP (which made it difficult to put on hosiery), and sciatica (prevalence ratios 1.3 to 1.7); but the risk of these outcomes in both sexes varied little by eVDV and only weak associations were found with riding on industrial vehicles. Assuming causal associations, the numbers of cases of LBP in Britain attributable to occupational WBV were estimated to be 444 000 in men and 95 000 in women. This compared with an estimated 940 000 male cases and 370 000 female cases of LBP from occupational lifting. CONCLUSIONS:The burden of LBP in Britain from occupational exposure to WBV is smaller than that attributable to lifting at work.

SUBMITTER: Palmer KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1740390 | biostudies-literature | 2003 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The relative importance of whole body vibration and occupational lifting as risk factors for low-back pain.

Palmer K T KT Griffin M J MJ Syddall H E HE Pannett B B Cooper C C Coggon D D

Occupational and environmental medicine 20031001 10

<h4>Aims</h4>To explore the impact of occupational exposure to whole body vibration (WBV) on low back pain (LBP) in the general population and to estimate the burden of LBP attributable to occupational WBV in comparison with that due to occupational lifting.<h4>Methods</h4>A questionnaire including sections on WBV at work, LBP, and potential risk factors was mailed to a community sample of 22 194 men and women of working age. Sources and durations of exposure to occupational WBV were ascertained ...[more]

PMID: 14504358

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common condition and a leading cause of health function loss worldwide. This study assessed the impact of occupational factors on LBP using Mendelian Randomization (MR) method, controlling for confounding variables.MethodsBased on publicly available genome-wide association studies (GWAS), two-sample univariate and multivariate MR analyses were performed to assess the causal effect of occupational factors on LBP. We used the inverse variance weighted (IVW) method and sensitivity analyses to generate the total results for the univariate MR analysis. Furthermore, we performed multivariate MR analysis to assess the direct causal association between occupational factors and LBP after accounting for potential confounding variables.ResultsThe total causal effect of genetically predicted job involves heavy manual or physical work on LBP was found to be significant (IVW OR, 2.117; 95% CI, 1,288-3.479; p = 0.003). Upon adjusting for potential confounding variables, the direct effect of job involves heavy manual or physical work on LBP remained statistically significant. Similarly, the total causal effect of genetically predicted job involves mainly walking or standing on LBP was also found to be significant (IVW OR, 1.429; 95% CI, 1,035-1.975; p = 0.030). However, upon adjusting for potential confounding variables, the direct effect of job involves mainly walking or standing on LBP became insignificant. In contrast, the findings from the MR analysis indicated a lack of association between work/job satisfaction and LBP. Sensitivity analysis consistently supported these trends.ConclusionOur results supported a causal link between job involves heavy manual or physical work and increased risk of LBP, while finding no significant associations between prolonged walking/standing at work, job satisfaction, and LBP, providing valuable insights for the development of targeted prevention and intervention strategies for LBP.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group's specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005.Review methodsThe primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent control group. Interventions aimed to modify techniques for lifting and handling heavy objects or patients and including measurements for back pain, consequent disability, or sick leave as the main outcome were considered for the review. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies and methodological quality of those included. For data synthesis, we summarised the results of studies comparing similar interventions. We used odds ratios and effect sizes to combine the results in a meta-analysis. Finally, we compared the conclusions of the primary and secondary analyses.ResultsSix randomised trials and five cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Two randomised trials and all cohort studies were labelled as high quality. Eight studies looked at lifting and moving patients, and three studies were conducted among baggage handlers or postal workers. Those in control groups received no intervention or minimal training, physical exercise, or use of back belts. None of the comparisons in randomised trials (17,720 participants) yielded significant differences. In the secondary analysis, none of the cohort studies (772 participants) had significant results, which supports the results of the randomised trials.ConclusionsThere is no evidence to support use of advice or training in working techniques with or without lifting equipment for preventing back pain or consequent disability. The findings challenge current widespread practice of advising workers on correct lifting technique.

Project description:BackgroundVibration therapy (VT), a treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, has been developed for clinical applications in the past decade. However, its effect on relieving chronic low back pain (CLBP) and improving lumbar function is still illusive, lacking sufficient evidence-based medical data.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of vibration therapy on pain and function in people with CLBP.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Date, VIP, and CBM were applied to search for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vibration therapy for people with CLBP. The electronic databases were searched from the establishment of the database until July 1, 2023. Two researchers assessed the quality of the included studies and extracted data. The outcome indicators included the pain intensity index, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) score, and Roland-Morris dysfunction questionnaire (RMDQ) score. GRADE was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence of each outcome indicator. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsFourteen papers met the inclusion criteria with 860 subjects (VT group n = 432 and control group n = 428). VT for patients with CLBP reduced the pain intensity index [SMD = - 0.71, 95% CI (- 1.02, - 0.39), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001], the ODI score value [MD = - 4.24, 95% CI (- 8.10, - 0.38), I2 = 88%, P = 0.03], and the RMDQ score value [MD = - 2.21, 95% CI (- 3.41, - 1.01), I2 = 0%, P = 0.0003]. Subgroup analysis displayed that the pain intensity index was lower in the whole-body vibration (WBV) group than in the control group [SMD = - 0.49, 95% CI (- 0.79, - 0.19), I2 = 58%, P = 0.001] and the local vibration (LV) group [SMD = - 1.07, 95% CI (- 1.60, - 0.53), I2 = 76%, P < 0.0001]. The ODI scores in the WBV group were lower than those in the control group [MD = - 3.30, 95% CI (- 5.76, - 0.83), I2 = 36%, P = 0.009]. There was no statistically significant difference in ODI scores between the LV group and the control group [MD = - 5.78, 95% CI (- 16.23, 4.66), I2 = 97%, P = 0.28].ConclusionThe data from this study suggest that VT can reduce pain and improve lumbar function in patients with CLBP. However, we still need to carefully interpret the results of this study, as the certainty of evidence was low, and the clinical relevance of the results is questionable. Further RCTs are needed in the future to ascertain this.

Dataset Information

The relative importance of whole body vibration and occupational lifting as risk factors for low-back pain.

Publications

The relative importance of whole body vibration and occupational lifting as risk factors for low-back pain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets