Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 2013 (12), CD008742

Conservative Interventions for Treating Work-Related Complaints of the Arm, Neck or Shoulder in Adults

Affiliations
Review

Conservative Interventions for Treating Work-Related Complaints of the Arm, Neck or Shoulder in Adults

Arianne P Verhagen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

Abstract

Background: Work-related upper limb disorder (WRULD), repetitive strain injury (RSI), occupational overuse syndrome (OOS) and work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) are the most frequently used umbrella terms for disorders that develop as a result of repetitive movements, awkward postures and impact of external forces such as those associated with operating vibrating tools. Work-related CANS, which is the term we use in this review, severely hampers the working population.

Objectives: To assess the effects of conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder (CANS) in adults on pain, function and work-related outcomes.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 31 May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 31 May 2013), EMBASE (1988 to 31 May 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 31 May 2013), AMED (1985 to 31 May 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to 31 May 2013), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; inception to 31 May 2013) and the Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence Database (OTseeker; inception to 31 May 2013). We did not apply any language restrictions.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults. We excluded trials undertaken to test injections and surgery. We included studies that evaluated effects on pain, functional status or work ability.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. When studies were sufficiently similar, we performed statistical pooling of reported results.

Main results: We included 44 studies (62 publications) with 6,580 participants that evaluated 25 different interventions. We categorised these interventions according to their working mechanisms into exercises, ergonomics, behavioural and other interventions.Overall, we judged 35 studies as having a high risk of bias mainly because of an unknown randomisation procedure, lack of a concealed allocation procedure, unblinded trial participants or lack of an intention-to-treat analysis.We found very low-quality evidence showing that exercises did not improve pain in comparison with no treatment (five studies, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to 0.03), or minor intervention controls (three studies, SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.37) or when provided as additional treatment (two studies, inconsistent results) at short-term follow-up or at long-term follow-up. Results were similar for recovery, disability and sick leave. Specific exercises led to increased pain at short-term follow-up when compared with general exercises (four studies, SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.75)We found very low-quality evidence indicating that ergonomic interventions did not lead to a decrease in pain when compared with no intervention at short-term follow-up (three studies, SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.22) but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up (four studies, SMD -0.76, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.16). There was no effect on disability but sick leave decreased in two studies (risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.76). None of the ergonomic interventions was more beneficial for any outcome measures when compared with another treatment or with no treatment or with placebo.Behavioural interventions had inconsistent effects on pain and disability, with some subgroups showing benefit and others showing no significant improvement when compared with no treatment, minor intervention controls or other behavioural interventions.In the eight studies that evaluated various other interventions, there was no evidence of a clear beneficial effect of any of the interventions provided.

Authors' conclusions: We found very low-quality evidence indicating that pain, recovery, disability and sick leave are similar after exercises when compared with no treatment, with minor intervention controls or with exercises provided as additional treatment to people with work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder. Low-quality evidence also showed that ergonomic interventions did not decrease pain at short-term follow-up but did decrease pain at long-term follow-up. There was no evidence of an effect on other outcomes. For behavioural and other interventions, there was no evidence of a consistent effect on any of the outcomes.Studies are needed that include more participants, that are clear about the diagnosis of work-relatedness and that report findings according to current guidelines.

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, outcome: 1.1 Pain intensity, short term.
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 1 Pain intensity, short term.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 2 Pain intensity, long term.
Analysis 1.3
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 3 Disability, short term.
Analysis 1.4
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 4 Disability, short term.
Analysis 1.5
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 5 Disability, long term.
Analysis 1.6
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 6 Improvement, short term.
Analysis 1.7
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 7 Improvement, short term.
Analysis 1.8
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 Exercise versus no treatment controls, Outcome 8 Sick leave, long term.
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Exercise versus active treatment controls, Outcome 1 Pain intensity, short term.
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Exercise versus active treatment controls, Outcome 2 Pain intensity, long term.
Analysis 2.3
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 Exercise versus active treatment controls, Outcome 3 Disability, short term.
Analysis 2.4
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 Exercise versus active treatment controls, Outcome 4 Disability, long term.
Analysis 2.5
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 Exercise versus active treatment controls, Outcome 5 Improvement, short term.
Analysis 3.1
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 1 Pain intensity, short term.
Analysis 3.2
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 2 Pain intensity, long term.
Analysis 3.3
Analysis 3.3
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 3 Disability, short term.
Analysis 3.4
Analysis 3.4
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 4 Disability, short term.
Analysis 3.5
Analysis 3.5
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 5 Disability, long term.
Analysis 3.6
Analysis 3.6
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 6 Disability, long term.
Analysis 3.7
Analysis 3.7
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 7 Improvement, short term.
Analysis 3.8
Analysis 3.8
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 8 Improvement, long term.
Analysis 3.9
Analysis 3.9
Comparison 3 Ergonomic intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 9 Sick leave, short term.
Analysis 4.1
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 Ergonomic intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 1 Pain intensity, short term.
Analysis 4.2
Analysis 4.2
Comparison 4 Ergonomic intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 2 Pain intensity, long term.
Analysis 5.1
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 1 Pain intensity, short term.
Analysis 5.2
Analysis 5.2
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 2 Pain, short term.
Analysis 5.3
Analysis 5.3
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 3 Disability, short term.
Analysis 5.4
Analysis 5.4
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 4 Disability, short term.
Analysis 5.5
Analysis 5.5
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 5 Sick leave, short term.
Analysis 5.6
Analysis 5.6
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 6 Sick leave, short term.
Analysis 5.7
Analysis 5.7
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 7 Pain, long term.
Analysis 5.8
Analysis 5.8
Comparison 5 Behavioural intervention versus no treatment controls, Outcome 8 Disability, long term.
Analysis 6.1
Analysis 6.1
Comparison 6 Behavioural intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 1 Pain intensity, short term.
Analysis 6.2
Analysis 6.2
Comparison 6 Behavioural intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 2 Disability, short term.
Analysis 6.3
Analysis 6.3
Comparison 6 Behavioural intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 3 Work ability, short term.
Analysis 6.4
Analysis 6.4
Comparison 6 Behavioural intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 4 Pain intensity, long term.
Analysis 6.5
Analysis 6.5
Comparison 6 Behavioural intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 5 Disability, long term.
Analysis 6.6
Analysis 6.6
Comparison 6 Behavioural intervention versus active treatment controls, Outcome 6 Work ability, long term.

Update of

  • Cochrane Database Syst Rev. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008742

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 19 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles
Feedback