Cumulative spinal loading exposure methods for manual material handling tasks. Part 1: is cumulative spinal loading associated with lower back disorders?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: To critically appraise the observational studies linking cumulative spinal loading and lower back disorders (LBD) among workers engaged in manual material handling and to explore the association between cumulative spinal loading and LBD through a meta-analysis of papers reported in the published literature. Background: Although studies have indicated a definitive relationship between long-term exposure to manual materials handling and LBD, little is generally known about the validity of the cumulative exposure assessment methods used for predicting the risk of LBD. Methods: A comprehensive electronic search on the subject was conducted. The articles found from the search were critically appraised from an epidemiological standpoint. The strengths and weaknesses of the studies were documented. A quantitative assessment was performed for the meta-analysis estimate using the fixed-effect and random-effects (Dersimonian and Laird method) models. The assessments were conducted in two ways: with a standard approach that does not consider study quality and with a modified method that allows weighting scores to be calculated based on the rating of the quality of each study. Results: The electronic search resulted in identification of four epidemiological papers, three of which provided sufficient information for an assessment of epidemiological quality and two of which provided sufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis. The results showed that the methodological quality of the studies ranged from poor to marginal. Without considering the overall study quality for the exposure data, (1) there were substantial differences between the three studies that were rated for epidemiological quality as evidenced by the significant heterogeneity testing at the 10% level and (2) the difference in the mean exposure values between the study and control groups (i.e. summary mean difference) was significant at the 5% level for both the fixed-effect and random-effects models. After accounting for overall study quality, the heterogeneity was reduced but still significant at the 10% level and the summary mean difference was greater than that without the quality score. The meta-odds ratio for LBD outcomes was 1.66 (95% confidence interval using quality scores = 1.46–1.89). Conclusions: The preliminary findings suggest that there likely is an association between cumulative spinal loading and LBD. Further, there are considerable differences among the studies in terms of exposure assessment techniques. A subsequent paper (Part II of this research) provides an in-depth analysis of cumulative spinal loading exposure methods and discusses critical issues related to their reliability and validity for estimating force distribution and practicality for field measurement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,047 | 0,105 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,032 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».