You are viewing a javascript disabled version of the site. Please enable Javascript for this site to function properly.
Go to headerGo to navigationGo to searchGo to contentsGo to footer
In content section. Select this link to jump to navigation

Comparison of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials evidence regarding the effectiveness of workplace exercise on musculoskeletal pain control

Issue title: IEA 2012: 18th World congress on Ergonomics - Designing a sustainable future

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Moreira, RFC | Foltran, FA | Albuquerque-Sendín, F | Mancini, MC | Coury, HJCG

Affiliations: Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luis, Km 235. Zip Code 13565-905, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil | Physical Therapy Department, University of Salamanca, Donante de Sangre s/n – Campus “Miguel de Unamuno”, Zip Code 37007, Salamanca, Spain | Occupational Therapy Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Antonio Carlos, 6627 - Campus Universitario Pampulha, Zip Code 31270-010, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

Note: [] Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].

Keywords: physical education and training, workers, prevention, musculoskeletal diseases, evaluation

DOI: 10.3233/WOR-2012-0764-4782

Journal: Work, vol. 41, no. Supplement 1, pp. 4782-4789, 2012

Published: 2012
Get PDF

Abstract

Evidence synthesized based on randomized controlled trials (RCT) results are recognized as the pinnacle of research excellence; however, the conduction of RCT in workplace environment is not always possible. This study comparatively reviewed evidence from RCT and non-RCT studies in which participants performed workplace exercise for musculoskeletal pain control. Up to February 2011, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, PEDro and Web of Science databases were searched. All trials that evaluated workplace exercise interventions for controlling musculoskeletal pain were included. The PEDro scale was used to rate the studies’ quality, PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations were applied, and association between frequencies of effect size categories (small, moderate, large) from various outcomes by study type was tested (2x3 contingency table). The search yielded 10239 references in English, from which 21 RCT and 12 non-RCT were selected. Both groups of studies presented methodological flaws including descriptions of randomization, blinding of examiners and absence of intention-totreat analysis for the RCT, and further absence of controls and blind assessor for the non-RCTs. RCTs had significantly more moderate and large effect size reported in their results compared to non-RCTs (p=0.04). Considering the difficulties in randomizing participants in occupational settings, all studies would benefit from better describing pertinent methodological information.

Show more