Dataset Information

Work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review including meta-analysis and GRADE work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder in workers, often associated with physically demanding work. Knowledge of work-relatedness of LE is crucial to develop appropriate preventive measures. This study investigates the prospective association between work-related physical risk factors and LE.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in MedLine using PubMed from January 1, 2010 until February 16, 2021. Published reports were included if: (1) LE was clinically assessed, (2) exposure to work-related physical risk factors was assessed, and (3) associations between LE and work-related physical risk factors were reported in prospective studies. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Results

In total, 318 workers with LE from a population of 5036 workers in five studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed high-quality evidence for associations between LE and a Strain Index (SI) score >5.1 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-2.78) and moderate-quality evidence for forearm rotation >4 h/day or forearm rotation ≥45° for ≥45% time (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.10-3.10). Gripping, flexion and extension of the wrist, and repetitive movements showed no significant associations with LE.

Conclusion

High-quality evidence was found indicating that a higher SI increased the risk of LE. Moderate-quality evidence was found for an association between forearm rotation and LE. No associations were found between other physical risk factors and LE. Primary preventive interventions should focus on a reduction of the SI and of high forearm rotation in work.

SUBMITTER: Bretschneider SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9297967 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review including meta-analysis and GRADE work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis.

Bretschneider S Fransje SF Los Felicia S FS Eygendaal Denise D Kuijer P Paul F M PPFM van der Molen Henk F HF

American journal of industrial medicine 20211021 1

<h4>Background</h4>Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder in workers, often associated with physically demanding work. Knowledge of work-relatedness of LE is crucial to develop appropriate preventive measures. This study investigates the prospective association between work-related physical risk factors and LE.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature review was conducted in MedLine using PubMed from January 1, 2010 until February 16, 2021. Published reports were ...[more]

PMID: 34674287

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe number of primary knee arthroplasties (KAs) performed annually is rising, especially among active, working age patients. Consequently, revision KA is also increasingly performed. Our aim was to systematically review the extent to which patients were physically active following revision KA, and the rate and timing of return to sport and work.MethodsA search was conducted in the databases Medline and Embase until February 24th, 2023. Studies describing patients with revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) or revision unicondylar knee arthroplasty (rUKA), with outcomes regarding physical activity or return to sport (RTS) or work (RTW) were included. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE).ResultsOf the 4,314 articles screened, 22 studies were included describing 2,462 rTKA patients (no rUKA), 42% were male with a mean age of 67 years (range 24 - 95). No studies reported objective physical activity measurements. Twenty-two studies reported patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The PROMs that were pooled on a scale from zero to ten were the UCLA Activity Score, the Tegner Activity Level Scale, the Lower-Extremity Activity Scale, Devane Activity Score, and physical activity related subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. The retrospective studies of moderate quality showed a statistically significant postoperative improvement of 1.7 points (MD = 1.71, 95% CI 1.48 - 1.94 (p < 0.0001); 14 studies, n = 1,211). For the prospective moderate-quality studies, a statistically significant postoperative increase of 0.9 points was found (MD = 0.89, 95% CI 0.48 - 1.30 (p < 0.0001); 6 studies, n = 1,027). Regarding RTS, 12% of patients participated in so-called 'non-recommended' activities (i.e., hockey, soccer, football, gymnastics, jogging, singles tennis, and basketball) after rTKA (1 study, n = 206). The pooled RTW was 86% (2 studies, range 18-95%, n = 234).ConclusionsThe majority of patients self-reported an improved postoperative activity level after rTKA. Patients could maintain an active lifestyle in daily life, including sports and work. For reliable physical activity, RTS and RTW estimations, more studies are required. In terms of GRADE, the quality of evidence for the five prospective studies was rated as low.Level of evidenceLevel 3.

Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been used in various musculoskeletal disorders, including lateral epicondylitis. However, in 2005, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that ESWT provides minimal or no benefit in terms of pain and function in patients with lateral epicondylitis. Since the review, several randomized controlled trials including different types of ESWT such as radial type for lateral epicondylitis have been published. Investigations of the effect modifiers such as symptom and follow-up duration on the effects of ESWT on lateral epicondylitis have not been performed.Questions/purposes(1) Does ESWT reduce pain and improve grip strength in patients with lateral epicondylitis? (2) Which type of ESWT, radial or focused, is more effective? (3) Is the duration of symptoms associated with the efficacy of ESWT for lateral epicondylitis? (4) Do improvements in pain scores remain in patients with longer follow-up?MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to July 2019 for articles published in English or Korean. Studies were included if patient allocation was randomized, the sample was composed of patients with lateral epicondylitis, interventions were ESWT (focused or radial), comparison group only received sham stimulation or no additional treatment, and the study outcome was pain intensity or grip strength. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Twelve studies including 1104 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference for pain reduction and improvement in grip strength was calculated.ResultsThe meta-analysis showed no clinically important difference in the VAS score (2.48 ± 7.55 versus 3.17 ± 9.78, mean difference -0.68 [95% confidence interval -1.17 to -0.19]; p = 0.006) and grip strength (38.02 ± 70.56 versus 34.85 ± 108.26, mean difference 3.33 [95% CI 0.93 to 5.73]; p = 0.007) after ESWT relative to the comparison group's score. Even though radial ESWT showed more improvement than focused, the mean difference for VAS did not exceed the minimal clinically important differences threshold. There were no clinically important effects on the VAS scores of patients with lateral epicondylitis (2.78 ± 5.57 versus 3.92 ± 6.29, mean difference -1.13 [95% CI -1.84 to -0.42]; p = 0.002) and focused ESWT did not improve pain in patients with lateral epicondylitis. In the subgroup analysis, ESWT was effective in patients with a symptom duration of more than 6 months (2.28 ± 8.48 versus 3.31 ± 11.81, mean difference -0.95 [95% CI -1.75 to -0.15]; p = 0.02) but not for those with shorter symptom duration. The effects did not last beyond 24 weeks (2.52 ± 9.19 versus 3.34 ± 5.93, mean difference -0.82 [95% CI -2.57 to 0.93]; p = 0.36).ConclusionsESWT did not show clinically important improvement in pain reduction and grip strength. Radial ESWT, symptom duration of longer than 6 months, and short follow-up duration (less than 24 weeks) were related to better effects. Further studies are needed to determine the appropriate protocol and elucidate the effects according to the intervention type and specific disease condition.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroid injection and non-electrotherapeutic physiotherapy compared with control for treating lateral epicondylitis.DesignSystematic review.ParticipantsWe searched five databases in September 2012 for randomised controlled studies with a minimum quality rating. Of the 640 studies retrieved, 11 were included, representing 1161 patients of both sexes and all ages.InterventionsCorticosteroid injection and non-electrotherapeutic physiotherapy.Outcome measuresRelative risk (RR) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for overall improvement, pain and grip strength at 4-12, 26 and 52 weeks of follow-up.ResultsCorticosteroid injection gave a short-term reduction in pain versus no intervention or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SMD -1.43, 95% CI -1.64 to -1.23). At intermediate follow-up, we found an increase in pain (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.51), reduction in grip strength (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.24) and negative effect on the overall improvement effect (RR 0.66 (0.53 to 0.81)). For corticosteroid injection versus lidocaine injection, the evidence was conflicting. At long-term follow-up, there was no difference on overall improvement and grip strength, with conflicting evidence for pain. Manipulation and exercise versus no intervention showed beneficial effect at short-term follow-up (overall improvement RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82), but no significant difference at intermediate or long-term follow-up. We found moderate evidence for short-term and long-term effects of eccentric exercise and stretching versus no intervention. For exercise versus no intervention and eccentric or concentric exercise and stretching versus stretching alone, we found moderate evidence of no short-term effect.ConclusionsCorticosteroid injections have a short-term beneficial effect on lateral epicondylitis, but a negative effect in the intermediate term. Evidence on the long-term effect is conflicting. Manipulation and exercise and exercise and stretching have a short-term effect, with the latter also having a long-term effect.

Dataset Information

Work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review including meta-analysis and GRADE work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis: Systematic review including meta-analysis and GRADE work-relatedness of lateral epicondylitis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets