OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
METHOD: We created an iontophoresis cell; 3% CF was inserted within medullary segment of goat bone and sealed from external saline solution. The cell operated at the following voltages 30, 60 and 90 V and at the following durations 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 min. Information regarding optimal conditions for its application was then obtained. After which, correlation between voltages and time with CF concentration in the bone was analysed. A bioavailability test was also conducted to observe the optimal rate of CF elution from the graft.
RESULT: The optimal condition for the impregnation process is 3% CF at 90 V for 10 min. Bone graft impregnated with CF at optimal conditions can elute above minimum inhibitory concentration of the CF against MRSA for 21 days.
CONCLUSION: CF iontophoresis was found feasible for allograft impregnation. The technique is simple, inexpensive and reproducible clinically. Iontophoresis offers a novel solution to reduce the rate of perioperative infection in reconstructive surgery involving use of bone graft.
METHODS: An open web server PharmMapper was used to identify the possible target of the developed compounds through reverse pharmacophore mapping. The results were analyzed and validated through docking with Schrodinger v9.6 using 10 protein GTPase HRas selected as possible target. The docking studies with Schrödinger validated the binding behavior of bis-pyrimidine compounds within GTP binding pocket. MTT and sulforhodamine assay were used as antiproliferative activity.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The protein was found one of the top scored targets of the compound 18, hence, the GTPase HRas protein was found crucial to be targeted for competing cancer. Toxicity study demonstrated the significant selectivity of most active compounds, 12, 16 and 18 showed negligible cell toxicity at their IC50 concentration.
CONCLUSION: From the results, we may conclude that GTPase HRas as a possible target of studied bis-pyrimidine derivatives where the retrieved information may be quite useful for rational drug designing.
Methods: Online databases (PubMed/MEDLINE/PubMed Central, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science and Google Scholar) were searched for all published eligible research articles in the past 12 years (as of January 2005-2017). A total of 17 research articles were included. The interventions were classified as 'individual level', 'community level' and 'cultural sensitive educations' which contains various interventions in their content as compared with usual care. A quality coding system was assessed using Cochrane checklists and rated by each researcher independently and the average score was given accordingly. This study was registered in PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017060405.
Results: The review dovetailed 17 studies. Ten studies (58.82%) were conducted in the United States, three in Iran (17.65%) and one each in Malaysia, China, Cameroon and Nigeria (23.53%). Almost all levels of the interventions boosted the screening uptake and the Pap test. However, the individual level health education interventions were prioritized in many of the studies.
Conclusion: The review indicated that health education interventions have immense contributions in boosting the screening uptake. However, the effectiveness varies with study setting, populations and the way of delivery. Therefore, the limited quality of the studies indicated that further research is required to develop a simple and effective intervention to boost cervical cancer screening uptake.