Occupational interventions for the prevention of back pain: Overview of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".