Materials and Methods: The Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire was sent out to all orthopaedic consultants and residents at two institutions in Singapore, via an email link to an online survey. Separately, further questions on symptom description, severity and treatment were surveyed. Additional information like age, gender, height and weight were obtained as well.
Results: A total of 87.5% respondents have at least one injury. Neck symptoms (66.1%) were the most prevalent, and back symptoms had the highest median severity score (4.5/10). The 74.1% of these injuries were reported as directly attributable to work. Age was found to be associated with an increase in the total number of anatomical areas affected (p = 0.016). A seated operating position was associated with more severe back pain (p = 0.040).
Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of occupational injuries sustained in our population of orthopaedic surgeons. Neck symptoms, followed by back and wrist symptoms, were the predominant symptoms in our population. Targeted ergonomic interventions may be considered to prevent specific musculoskeletal injuries in our population of orthopaedic surgeons.
METHODS: A cohort of 611 male Malaysian Army recruits were recruited and followed up at 3 and 6 months. Pain catastrophising, MSD, sociodemographic and work factors were measured using a self-administered questionnaire, and MSI incidence was retrieved from the medical records. Multivariable fixed effects regression was used to model the cumulative incidence of MSD and MSI.
RESULTS: Approximately 12% of the recruits were diagnosed with incident MSI and 80% reported incident MSD. Higher pain catastrophising at baseline was associated with higher 6 month MSD risk (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.6 per 1 SD increase of Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS) scores; 95% CI 1.2 to 2.0), and longitudinally associated with MSD incidence (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.4). Pain catastrophising was not associated with MSI incidence (aOR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.3). The association between pain catastrophising and self-reported MSD was stronger among recruits with self-reported past injury (p for interaction <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Pain catastrophising was able to predict symptomatic MSD, and not physician-diagnosed MSI, and these findings are directly related to individual health beliefs. Pain catastrophising has a greater influence on how military recruits perceived their musculoskeletal conditions during training, and efforts to reduce pain catastrophising may be beneficial.
PURPOSE: This review article aims to recapitulate the therapeutic potential of berberine and its mechanism of action in treating musculoskeletal disorders.
METHODS: A wide range of literature illustrating the effects of berberine in ameliorating musculoskeletal disorders was retrieved from online electronic databases (PubMed and Medline) and reviewed.
RESULTS: Berberine may potentially retard the progression of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Limited studies reported the effects of berberine in suppressing the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells. These beneficial properties of berberine are mediated in part through its ability to target multiple signaling pathways, including PKA, p38 MAPK, Wnt/β-catenin, AMPK, RANK/RANKL/OPG, PI3K/Akt, NFAT, NF-κB, Hedgehog, and oxidative stress signaling. In addition, berberine exhibited anti-apoptotic, anti-inflammatory, and immunosuppressive properties.
CONCLUSION: The current evidence indicates that berberine may be effective in preventing musculoskeletal disorders. However, findings from in vitro and in vivo investigations await further validation from human clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: To review the prevalence of illness, stress, and corresponding risk factors among educators in Malaysia.
METHOD: Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed, ScienceDirect, CAB, and other computerized databases were searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies published between January 2013 and April 2019 on the prevalence and associated risk factors of illness and stress among educators (S1 Checklist). The keywords used included educator, teacher, lecturer, academic staff, teaching profession, university staff, academician, faculty, illness, injury, disease, pain, WMSD, dysphonia, hoarseness, stress, mental health, strain, health problem, disorder, and/or Malaysia. Selected studies were evaluated by quality assessment.
RESULTS: Twenty-two articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The prevalence of illness and stress was determined for low back pain (33.3-72.9%); upper back pain (33.33-56.4%); neck/shoulder pain (40.4-80.1%); upper arm discomfort (91.3%); forearm pain (89.6%); wrist pain (16.7-93.2%); hip pain (13.2-40.9%); thigh discomfort (91.8%); lower leg discomfort (90.5%); knee pain (23.7-88.0%); ankle/feet pain (19.3-87.7%); elbow pain (3.5-13.0%); voice disorder (10.4-13.0%) and stress (5.5-25.9%). Sex, education level, teaching experience, quality of life, anxiety, depression, coping styles, and others were reported as associated risk factors across the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a cause for concern regarding musculoskeletal disorders, voice disorder, and stress reported among educators in Malaysia. While most risk factors matched those reported in studies elsewhere, others such as school characteristics (school level, government or private school, and location [rural/urban]) have not been investigated.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of workplace ergonomic design or training interventions, or both, for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Database and Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register to July 2010, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and International Occupational Safety and Health Information Centre database to November 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic workplace interventions for preventing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs. We included only studies with a baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, of 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 intervention and outcome in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (2397 workers). Eleven studies were conducted in an office environment and two in a healthcare setting. We judged one study to have a low risk of bias. The 13 studies evaluated effectiveness of ergonomic equipment, supplementary breaks or reduced work hours, ergonomic training, a combination of ergonomic training and equipment, and patient lifting interventions for preventing work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck in adults.Overall, there was moderate-quality evidence that arm support with alternative mouse reduced the incidence of neck/shoulder disorders (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/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 was also moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not reduced when comparing alternative mouse and conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), arm support and no arm support with conventional mouse (neck/shoulder RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.24; right upper limb RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.51 to 2.29), and alternative mouse with arm support and conventional mouse with arm support (neck/shoulder RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.12; right upper limb RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.36).There was low-quality evidence that using an alternative mouse with arm support compared to conventional mouse with arm support reduced neck/shoulder discomfort (SMD -0.39; 95% CI -0.67 to -0.10). There was low- to very low-quality evidence that other interventions were not effective in reducing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs in adults.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.
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.