Dataset Information

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group's specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005.

Review methods

The 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.

Results

Six 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.

Conclusions

There 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.

SUBMITTER: Martimo KP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2249682 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review.

Martimo Kari-Pekka KP Verbeek Jos J Karppinen Jaro J Furlan Andrea D AD Takala Esa-Pekka EP Kuijer P Paul F M PP Jauhiainen Merja M Viikari-Juntura Eira E

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20080131 7641

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether advice and training on working techniques and lifting equipment prevent back pain in jobs that involve heavy lifting.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Back Group's specialised register, CINAHL, Nioshtic, CISdoc, Science Citation Index, and PsychLIT were searched up to September-November 2005.<h4>Review methods</h4>The primary search focused on randomised controlled trials and the secondary search on cohort studies with a concurrent co ...[more]

PMID: 18244957

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBack pain is a widespread health problem that accounts for substantial disability and high costs. The workplace is considered to critically affect the occurrence and persistence of back pain and therefore offers an important opportunity for preventive interventions. Various work-related intervention strategies including both single- and multicomponent interventions have been developed and evaluated so far. To determine their effectiveness, a method of analysis is needed that particularly meets the challenges of the multidimensionality and diversity of these interventions. This planned systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the effects of different work-related interventions for preventing non-specific back pain in people within a formal employment-related context.MethodsWe will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PEDro, SPORTDiscus, and Academic Search Premier from their inception onwards, as well as additional sources. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs will be considered if they (1) include people within a formal employment-related context, (2) include people without back pain or mixed samples (i.e., people with and without back pain), (3) compare one or more work-related preventive intervention(s) to a control condition, and (4) assess non-specific back pain (incidence or/and pain intensity), ability to work (numbers of participants or/and numbers of days absent from work), intervention-related adverse events or/and self-reported satisfaction with the intervention. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. We will calculate summary effect sizes for each comparison of interventions and rank interventions according to their P scores. If feasible, we will conduct additional component network meta-analyses. We plan to conduct subgroup analyses for job exposure, intervention duration, baseline back pain, different localizations of back pain, and gender. Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 and the certainty of the evidence will be rated using the GRADE approach.DiscussionThis systematic review aims to identify work-related intervention strategies as well as components within work-related interventions that are effective for preventing back pain. We expect the results to provide guidance for selecting the most promising interventions and foster the purposeful use of resources. Additionally, they may inform the development and implementation of work-related interventions as well as the design of future research in this field.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021232469.

Project description:BackgroundPregnancy-related low back pain (PLBP) affects the daily living activities of pregnant women, even leading to fetal agitation and threatened abortion. Kinesio taping (KT) can improve the circulation of blood and provide elastic supports, which is a reliable method to treat low back pain. At present, although many studies have been published on the effects of KT on PLBP, the results are inconsistent, and some studies even report that KT does not affect PLBP. there is still a lack of high-level clinical evidence for the treatment of PLBP with KT. Therefore, this study proposes a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of published Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of KT for PLBP.MethodsThis protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. We will search the following database sources of the RCTs: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), Chinese Science, and the Wanfang Database. From the establishment of the database to April 2021. The retrieval word adopts the combination of theme words and free words. Take "Kinesiotape, Tape Athletic, Orthotic Tape, Athletic Tape, Pregnancy, Pregnancies, Gestation, low back pain" as a term for retrieval. Two independent investigators will conduct an electronic literature search, study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment to summarize and evaluate the efficacy of KT in the treatment of PLBP. Retrospective trials are not included, and the risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane bias risk tool. All data analysis will be conducted using Revman5.3 software.ResultsQuality outcomes in systematic review studies depend on inclusion and search criteria to obtain high-quality data, as well as how the data are processed and interpreted. Among the results, this study will objectively and comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of the randomized controlled trial of KT in the treatment of PLBP, and make a detailed analysis of the effect of KT in the treatment of PLBP. The results will be analyzed by the Visual Analogue Scale of Pain and the Roland Morris Dysfunction Questionnaire. If applicable, a subgroup analysis will also be performed, which will be grouped according to the duration of pregnancy, grade of pain, etc. Finally, the results are submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.ConclusionBased on the results, this study will analyze and summarize the effect of KT on improving PLBP. It includes whether KT can improve the pain and lumbar function of PLBP, or it has adverse effects and reactions on pregnant women, then analysis and interpretation of other related issues. It is expected that the results of this study will provide a reference to the method and time of taping for clinical staff, as well as high-quality evidence to resolve the effect of KT on low back pain and provide corresponding guidance for pregnant women with low back pain. It aims to improve the status of low back pain in pregnant women and improve their physical health.Protocol registration numberPROSPERO CRD42021250373; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.

Dataset Information

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review.

Objectives

Data sources

Review methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets