Men and Women's Occupational Activities and the Risk of Developing Osteoarthritis of the Knee, Hip, or Hands: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for an increased risk of osteoarthritis in the hip, knee, hand, wrist, finger, ankle, foot, shoulder, neck, and spine related to diverse occupational activities of men and women and to examine dose-response information related to the frequency, intensity, and duration of work exposures and the risk of osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Established guidelines for systematic reviews in occupational health and safety studies were followed. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 2017. Studies were reviewed for relevance, quality was appraised, and data were extracted and synthesized. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies from 23 countries yielded strong and moderate evidence for lifting, cumulative physical loads, full-body vibration, and kneeling/squatting/bending as increasing the risks of developing OA in men and women. Strong and moderate evidence existed for no increased risk of OA related to sitting, standing, and walking (hip and knee OA), lifting and carrying (knee OA), climbing ladders (knee OA), driving (knee OA), and highly repetitive tasks (hand OA). Variability in dose-response data resulted in an inability to synthesize these data. CONCLUSION: Evidence points to the potential for OA occupational recommendations and practice considerations to be developed for women and men. However, research attention is needed to overcome deficits in the measurement and recall of specific work activities so that recommendations and practice considerations can provide the specificity needed to be adopted in workplaces.
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 | 0.026 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".