You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Commentary
Authors' response: RCTs of ergonomic interventions
  1. Maurice T Driessen1,2,
  2. Johannes R Anema1,2,3,
  3. Karin I Proper1,2,
  4. Allard J van der Beek1,2,3
  1. 1Body@Work, TNO VUmc, Research Center for Physical Activity, Work and Health, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Public and Occupational Health and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  3. 3Research Center for Insurance Medicine, AMC-UWV-VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Johannes R Anema, VU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Public and Occupational Health, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, the Netherlands; h.anema{at}vumc.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009.050047

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    The findings of our systematic review (see page 277) showed that ergonomic interventions are not effective for preventing or reducing low back pain (LBP) and neck pain among non-sick listed workers. In this systematic review only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included, but Westgaard (see page 217) questions whether study designs other than RCTs (eg, quasi-experimental and qualitative studies) would be also suitable for evaluating the effectiveness of ergonomic interventions in the workplace. For a long time, the conduct of a systematic review on RCTs only was not possible because RCTs on ergonomic interventions were lacking. Therefore, reviews also included study designs that were suspicious for bias (ie, pre–post trials, prospective cohort studies, controlled trials and quasi-experimental trials).1 2 However, in …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Linked articles 047548, 048926.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles