Does objectively measured prolonged standing for desk work result in lower ratings of perceived low back pain than sitting? A systematic review and meta-analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting has been shown to induce transient low back pain (LBP). Height adjustable office desks now present the opportunity to replace sitting with standing in the workplace. Since standing has also been associated with LBP, this may not be an advisable alternative. OBJECTIVE: To determine if objectively measured prolonged exposures to desk work while standing, compared to sitting, results in lower perceived LBP in healthy adults. METHODS: A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and conducted a quality assessment. The results of three studies were pooled using an inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was tested using the Chi-squared test and I2 statistic. RESULTS: Objectively measured prolonged standing postures during desk work did not induce significantly less perceived LBP compared to seated postures (standardized mean difference 0.60, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.87, p = 0.36.) There was significant heterogeneity, I2 = 90%). CONCLUSIONS: It appears that replacing seated desk work postures with standing for prolonged periods of time would not be recommended. Larger studies, including a wider age range and health history, conducted in the field with objective measures is recommended to obtain more generalizable data on which to base ergonomic standards for work postures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it