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 |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the association of shift work with major vascular events as reported in the literature.Data sourcesSystematic searches of major bibliographic databases, contact with experts in the field, and review of reference lists of primary articles, review papers, and guidelines.Study selectionObservational studies that reported risk ratios for vascular morbidity, vascular mortality, or all cause mortality in relation to shift work were included; control groups could be non-shift ("day") workers or the general population.Data extractionStudy quality was assessed with the Downs and Black scale for observational studies. The three primary outcomes were myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and any coronary event. Heterogeneity was measured with the I(2) statistic and computed random effects models.Results34 studies in 2,011,935 people were identified. Shift work was associated with myocardial infarction (risk ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.31; I(2)=0) and ischaemic stroke (1.05, 1.01 to 1.09; I(2)=0). Coronary events were also increased (risk ratio 1.24, 1.10 to 1.39), albeit with significant heterogeneity across studies (I(2)=85%). Pooled risk ratios were significant for both unadjusted analyses and analyses adjusted for risk factors. All shift work schedules with the exception of evening shifts were associated with a statistically higher risk of coronary events. Shift work was not associated with increased rates of mortality (whether vascular cause specific or overall). Presence or absence of adjustment for smoking and socioeconomic status was not a source of heterogeneity in the primary studies. 6598 myocardial infarctions, 17,359 coronary events, and 1854 ischaemic strokes occurred. On the basis of the Canadian prevalence of shift work of 32.8%, the population attributable risks related to shift work were 7.0% for myocardial infarction, 7.3% for all coronary events, and 1.6% for ischaemic stroke.ConclusionsShift work is associated with vascular events, which may have implications for public policy and occupational medicine.