The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Surgeons and Interventionalists: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Physicians in procedural specialties are at high risk for work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This has been called "an impending epidemic" in the context of the looming workforce shortage; however, prevalence estimates vary by study. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of work-related MSDs among at-risk physicians and to evaluate the scope of preventive efforts. Data Sources and Study Selection: Systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science, PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information), and 2 clinical trial registries, without language restriction, for studies reporting on the prevalence and prevention of work-related MSDs among at-risk physicians published until December 2016. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies were used. At-risk physicians were defined as surgeons and medical interventionalists. Studies reporting on specific disorders or pain assessed with validated instruments were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Study characteristics; disease prevalence for the neck, shoulder, back, and upper extremity; and measures of resulting disability were recorded. Study estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analytic models. Main Outcomes and Measures: Career prevalence of injuries and 12-month prevalence of pain. Results: Among 21 articles (5828 physicians [mean age, 46.0 years; 78.5% male; 12.8 years in practice; 14.4 hours performing procedures per week]) included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, pooled crude prevalence estimates of the most common work-related MSDs were degenerative cervical spine disease in 17% (457 of 2406 physicians) (95% CI, 12%-25%), rotator cuff pathology in 18% (300 of 1513 physicians) (95% CI, 13%-25%), degenerative lumbar spine disease in 19% (544 of 2449 physicians) (95% CI, 5%-16%), and carpal tunnel syndrome in 9% (256 of 2449 physicians) (95% CI, 5%-16%). From 1997 to 2015, the prevalence of degenerative cervical spine disease and degenerative lumbar spine disease increased by 18.3% and 27%, respectively. Pooled prevalence estimates for pain ranged from 35% to 60% and differed by assessment instrument. Of those with a work-related MSD, 12% (277 of 2319 physicians) (95% CI, 7%-18%) required a leave of absence, practice restriction or modification, or early retirement. Heterogeneity was considerable for all crude analyses (mean I2 = 93.5%) but was lower for sensitivity analyses (mean I2 = 72.3%). Interventions focused on products and behaviors. Twelve at-risk specialties described a gross lack of awareness and an unmet need for ergonomics education. Conclusions and Relevance: Prevalence estimates of work-related MSDs among at-risk physicians appear to be high. Further research is needed to develop and validate an evidence-based applied ergonomics program aimed at preventing these disorders in this population.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Mata, D. A., Ramos, M. A., Bansal, N., Khan, R., Guille, C., Di Angelantonio, E., & Sen, S. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15845 · Cited by 1,255
Prevalence and Causes of Attrition Among Surgical Residents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Khoushhal, Z., Hussain, M. A., Greco, E., Mamdani, M., Verma, S., Rotstein, O., Tricco, A. C., & Al-Omran, M. (2017) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4086 · Cited by 281
Cited by
Physical and Psychological Impact of Surgery on the Operating Surgeon
Amirthanayagam, A., O'Neill, S., Goss, C., & Moss, E. L. (2024) · International Journal of Gynecological Cancer · doi:10.1136/ijgc-2023-004594 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Epstein, S., Sparer, E. H., Tran, B. N., Ruan, Q. Z., Dennerlein, J. T., Singhal, D., & Lee, B. T.
- Venue
- JAMA Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2018-02-21
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e174947
- ISSN
- 2168-6254 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2779242671
- Cited by
- 543
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 25.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Surgeons and Interventionalists: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4947
- The paper
- Epstein, S., Sparer, E. H., Tran, B. N., Ruan, Q. Z., Dennerlein, J. T., Singhal, D., & Lee, B. T. (2018). Prevalence of Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders Among Surgeons and Interventionalists: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.4947
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.