OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among dentists, explore the risk factors and identify the ergonomic preventive measures for dental professionals.
METHODS: Articles published between 2008-2020 were searched in scientific databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Systematic Review Checklist was used to assess the quality of the studies.
RESULTS: Eighteen studies were found to be suitable in the final review. Relevant data was extracted and summarized from the included studies. The annual prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in any body site ranged between 68% and 100%. The most predominant regions for musculoskeletal disorders among dental professionals were identified to be the lower back (29% to 94.6%), shoulder (25% to 92.7%), and neck (26% to 92%). The most frequently reported risk factors of MSDs were the individual characteristic female gender (57.1%), followed by awkward working postures (50%), long working experience (50%) and being dental specialists (42.9%). Several preventive measures were identified as the most effective ways in preventing MSDs, the use of magnification (40%) and regular physical activity (40%).
CONCLUSIONS: This review reported a high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) among dentists. It critically updates and adds the latest evidence on occupational ergonomics among dentists.
OBJECTIVE: The three main objectives are to analyze published pen-and-paper observational methods, to extract and understand the risk levels of each method and to identify their associated health effects.
METHODOLOGY: The authors searched scientific databases and the Internet for materials from 1970 to 2013 using the following keywords: ergo, posture, method, observational, postural angle, health effects, pain and diseases. Postural assessments of upper arms, lower arms, wrists, neck, back and legs in six pen-and-paper-based observational methods are highlighted, extracted in groups and linked with associated adverse health effects.
RESULTS: The literature reviewed showed strengths and limitations of published pen-and-paper-based observational methods in determining the work activities, risk levels and related postural angles to adverse health effects. This provided a better understanding of unsafe work postures and how to improve these postures.
CONCLUSION: Many pen-and-paper-based observational methods have been developed. However, there are still many limitations of these methods. There is, therefore, a need to develop a new pen-and-paper-based observational method for assessing postural problems.
METHODS: Although cross-sectional field visits were conducted in the current study, insight into past and present occupational safety and health concerns particularly regarding the ergonomics of oil palm plantations was further exploited. Besides discussion, video recordings were extensively used for ergonomics analysis.
RESULTS: The unique commodity of oil palm plantations presents significantly different ergonomics risk factors for fresh fruit bunch (FFB) cutters during different stages of harvesting. Although the ergonomics risk factors remain the same for FFB collectors, the intensity of manual lifting increases significantly with the age of the oil palm trees-weight of FFB.
CONCLUSIONS: There is urgent need to establish surveillance in order to determine the current prevalence of ergonomic injuries. Thereafter, ergonomics interventions that are holistic and comprehensive should be conducted and evaluated for their efficacy using approaches that are integrated, participatory and cost-effective.
ABBREVIATIONS: Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSDs); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA); Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99) but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.