Cochrane · systematic review · CD008570
Ergonomic interventions for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck among office workers
Hoe, VCW, Urquhart, DM, Kelsall, HL, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
48
current version
GRADE rated
34
No studies
14
Included studies
NR
No studies 14 · 29.2%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 12 · 25%Low 16 · 33.3%Moderate 6 · 12.5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyArm support combined with alternative mouse versus conventional mouse alone
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of upper body disorders (neck, shoulder, and upper extremity) Questionnaire followed by medical examination Arm support combined with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.66 [0.42, 1.04] | 2 studies · 191 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of neck or shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Arm support combined with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.52 [0.27, 0.99] | 2 studies · 186 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of right upper extremity disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Arm support combined with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.73 [0.32, 1.66] | 2 studies · 181 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Neck or shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Arm support combined with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 194 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper extremity discomfort score Questionnaire Arm support combined with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 194 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Work related function Arm support combined with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Arm support with conventional mouse versus conventional mouse alone
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of upper body disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.87 [0.42, 1.8] | 2 studies · 191 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Incidence of neck or shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.91 [0.12, 6.98] | 2 studies · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Incidence of right upper extremity disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | OR 1.07 [0.58, 1.96] | 2 studies · 178 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Neck or shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper extremity discomfort score Questionnaire Arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper‐limb strain scale Questionnaire Arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Work related function Arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Alternative mouse alone versus conventional mouse alone
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of upper body disorder (neck, shoulder and upper extremity) Questionnaire followed by medical examination Alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.79 [0.52, 1.21] | 2 studies · 190 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of neck or shoulderdisorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.62 [0.19, 2] | 2 studies · 182 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Incidence of right upper extremity disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.91 [0.48, 1.72] | 2 studies · 182 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Neck or shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper extremity discomfort score Questionnaire Alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Work related function Alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Alternative workstation adjustment compared to no workstation adjustment
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Neck or shoulder symptoms Questionnaire Alternative workstation adjustment vs no workstation adjustment | RR 1.08 [0.73, 1.59] | 1 study · 254 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Arm or hand pain or discomfort questionnaire Alternative workstation adjustment vs no workstation adjustment | RR 0.83 [0.5, 1.19] | 1 study · 245 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Intensity or severity of musculoskeletal pain Alternative workstation adjustment vs no workstation adjustment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Work related function Alternative workstation adjustment vs no workstation adjustment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Workstation adjustment according to OSHA/NIOSH recommendation compared to no workstation adjustment
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Neck or shoulder symptoms questionnaire Workstation adjustment according to OSHA/NIOSH recommendation vs no workstation adjustment | RR 1.19 [0.79, 1.79] | 1 study · 255 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Arm or hand symptoms Ouestionnaire Workstation adjustment according to OSHA/NIOSH recommendation vs no workstation adjustment | RR 0.92 [0.56, 1.5] | 1 study · 249 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Intensity or severity of musculoskeletal pain Workstation adjustment according to OSHA/NIOSH recommendation vs no workstation adjustment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Work related function Workstation adjustment according to OSHA/NIOSH recommendation vs no workstation adjustment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Sit‐stand workstation versus normal workstation
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence or prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders Sit‐stand workstation vs normal workstation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Intensity of neck and shoulder discomfort and pain Self‐reported questionnaire Sit‐stand workstation vs normal workstation | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 46 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Work related function Sit‐stand workstation vs normal workstation | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Supplementary breaks versus normal breaks
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence or prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders Supplementary breaks vs normal breaks | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
After shift discomfort rating for neck (range 1 to 5) Self‐reported questionnaire Supplementary breaks vs normal breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
After shift discomfort rating for right shoulder or upper arm Self‐reported questionnaire Supplementary breaks vs normal breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
After shift discomfort rating for right forearm or wrist or hand Self‐reported questionnaire Supplementary breaks vs normal breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Work related function Supplementary breaks vs normal breaks | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Ergonomic training programme for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Prevalence of Neck Musculoskeletal symptoms Questionnaire | RR 0.76 [0.47, 1.21] | 2 studies · 614 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Prevalence of shoulder musculoskeletal symptoms Questionnaire | RR 0.82 [0.59, 1.17] | 2 studies · 614 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Prevalence of hand or wrist musculoskeletal symptoms Questionnaire | RR 0.63 [0.36, 1.09] | 2 studies · 724 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Prevalence of neck or shoulder MSD Medical examination | RR 1.12 [0.6, 2.09] | 1 study · 455 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Prevalence of hand or wrist MSD Medical examination | RR 1.73 [0.47, 6.37] | 1 study · 503 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Intensity of upper extremity pain Questionnaire | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Frequency of upper extremity pain Questionnaire | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Duration of upper extremity pain Questionnaire | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 82 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Work related function | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Biofeedback (vibration) to reduce hand idle time on mouse versus no intervention
Population: office workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence or prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders Biofeedback (vibration) to reduce hand idle time on mouse vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Shoulder pain intensity Questionnaire survey Biofeedback (vibration) to reduce hand idle time on mouse vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 23 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Upper extremity pain intensity Self‐administered questionnaire Biofeedback (vibration) to reduce hand idle time on mouse vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 23 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Work related function Biofeedback (vibration) to reduce hand idle time on mouse vs no intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Comparing arm support with alternative mouse versus conventional mouse alone for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
Population: patients with work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of upper body disorders (neck, shoulder, and upper extremity) Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing arm support with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.66 [0.42, 1.04] | 2 studies · 191 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of neck/shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing arm support with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.52 [0.27, 0.99] | 2 studies · 186 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of right upper extremity disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing arm support with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.73 [0.32, 1.66] | 2 studies · 181 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Neck/shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Comparing arm support with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 194 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper extremity disorder Questionnaire Comparing arm support with alternative mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 194 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Comparing alternative mouse alone versus conventional mouse alone for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
Population: patients with work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of upper body disorder (neck, shoulder, and upper extremity) Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.79 [0.52, 1.21] | 2 studies · 190 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of neck/shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.62 [0.19, 2] | 2 studies · 182 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of right upper extremity disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.91 [0.48, 1.72] | 2 studies · 182 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Neck/shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Comparing alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper extremity discomfort score Questionnaire Comparing alternative mouse alone vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Comparing arm support with conventional mouse versus conventional mouse alone for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
Population: patients with work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of upper body disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.87 [0.42, 1.8] | 2 studies · 191 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of neck/shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | RR 0.67 [0.36, 1.24] | 2 studies · 186 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of right upper extremity disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | OR 1.09 [0.51, 2.29] | 2 studies · 178 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Neck/shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Comparing arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper extremity discomfort score Questionnaire Comparing arm support with conventional mouse vs conventional mouse alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Comparing alternative mouse with arm support versus conventional mouse with arm support for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
Population: patients with work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of upper body symptoms Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing alternative mouse with arm support vs conventional mouse with arm support | RR 0.77 [0.36, 1.63] | 2 studies · 190 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of neck/shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing alternative mouse with arm support vs conventional mouse with arm support | RR 0.58 [0.3, 1.12] | 2 studies · 186 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Incidence of right upper extremity disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Comparing alternative mouse with arm support vs conventional mouse with arm support | RR 0.92 [0.36, 2.36] | 2 studies · 175 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Neck/shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Comparing alternative mouse with arm support vs conventional mouse with arm support | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 193 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Right upper extremity discomfort score Questionnaire Comparing alternative mouse with arm support vs conventional mouse with arm support | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 193 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Comparing supplementary breaks versus conventional breaks for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
Population: patients with work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Discomfort ratings for neck (all time) (4‐8 weeks) Questionnaire Comparing supplementary breaks vs conventional breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Discomfort ratings of the right shoulder/upper arm (all time) (4‐8 weeks) Questionnaire Comparing supplementary breaks vs conventional breaks | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Discomfort ratings of right forearm/wrist/hand (all time) Comparing supplementary breaks vs conventional breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
After shifts discomfort rating for neck (4‐8 weeks) Questionnaire Comparing supplementary breaks vs conventional breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
After shifts discomfort ratings for right shoulder/upper arm (4‐8 weeks) Questionnaire Comparing supplementary breaks vs conventional breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
After shifts discomfort ratings for right forearm/wrist/hand (4‐8 weeks) Questionnaire Comparing supplementary breaks vs conventional breaks | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 186 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |