MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803486841 · doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2018.05.007

Occupational interventions for the prevention of back pain: Overview of systematic reviews

2018· review· en· W2803486841 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Safety Research · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsAlberta EnergyUniversity of Alberta
FundersGovernment of AlbertaGovernment of Alberta Ministry of Transportation
KeywordsPsychological interventionSystematic reviewAbsenteeismMedicineCochrane LibraryMEDLINEPhysical therapyLow back painSpinal manipulationFamily medicineAlternative medicinePsychologyNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of low back pain (LBP) that can be conducted in a workplace setting. METHODS: An electronic literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Published peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which described interventions for the primary or secondary prevention of LBP applicable to a workplace setting, were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed with the AMSTAR tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of LBP; secondary outcomes were LBP-associated absenteeism, activity interference, and costs related to LBP. RESULTS: Twenty-eight eligible articles published between 1994 and 2016 were included in a qualitative synthesis following our screening of abstracts and full-text articles. The AMSTAR rating revealed 14 reviews of high, 10 of moderate, and 4 of low methodological quality. The identified interventions included workplace modifications (6 reviews, 10 studies, 6,751 subjects); shoe insoles (4 reviews, 6 studies, 2,356 subjects); and lumbar supports and other assistive devices (15 reviews, 18 studies, 60,678 subjects). Educational interventions investigated were back schools (10 reviews, 30 studies, 9,973 subjects); manual material handling techniques/advice (6 reviews, 24 studies, 10,505 subjects); and other forms of instruction including pamphlets, booklets, and other media (four reviews, 14 studies, 11,991 subjects). Exercise interventions, investigated in 12 reviews (35 studies, 19,330 subjects), showed moderate quality evidence of effectiveness for exercise interventions alone or in conjunction with educational interventions; no other type of intervention was consistently effective in the prevention of LBP or LBP-associated outcomes of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Our overview provides evidence of effectiveness for exercise with or without educational interventions in the prevention of LBP. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Exercise interventions with or without educational interventions that can be applied in the workplace have the potential to prevent LBP.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.556
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.024 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it