Lateral Epicondylitis and Physical Exposure at Work? A Review of Prospective Studies and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In view of recent published studies, a meta-analysis was undertaken on prospective studies in order to assess any association between lateral epicondylitis and physical exposure at work. METHODS: Using the key words "lateral epicondylitis" AND "occupational" AND ("cohort" OR "longitudinal," OR "incidence") without limitations on the language or year of publication, original prospective studies were selected from 4 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Base de Données de Santé Publique) after 2 rounds (valid design, valid association reported, and valid work exposure). Relevant associations between physical exposure at work and incident lateral epicondylitis were extracted from the articles, and a meta-risk was calculated using the generic variance approach (meta-odds ratios [meta-ORs]). RESULTS: From 2001 to 2014, 5 prospective studies were included. Among 6,922 included subjects (and 3,449 who were followed), 256 cases of incident lateral epicondylitis were diagnosed 2.5-6 years after baseline. All the published studies found a significant estimation of relative risk for a positive association between combined biomechanic exposure involving the wrist and/or elbow and incidence of lateral epicondylitis. The overall meta-OR was 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.9-3.5), with a low heterogeneity (Q = 1.4, P > 0.05). Funnel plots and Egger's test did not suggest major publication bias. CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis strongly support the hypothesis of an association between biomechanic exposure involving the wrist and/or elbow at work and incidence of lateral epicondylitis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Psychosocial status, lifestyle, and occupational demands are important risk factors for elbow pain.
“Psychosocial status [9,10], lifestyle [11,12], and occupational demands (such as heavy load handling and highly repetitive movements with the wrist/hand) [11,13,14,15,16] are important risk factors.”
From Digital Rehabilitation for Elbow Pain Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 77
- Authors
- Descatha, A., Albo, F., Leclerc, A., Carton, M., Godeau, D., Roquelaure, Y., Petit, A., & Aublet‐Cuvelier, A.
- Affiliations
- Inserm (FR)
- Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers (FR)
- Université d'Angers (FR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Arthritis Care & Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-10-26
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1681-1687
- ISSN
- 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-464X
- 2151-4658
- OpenAlex
- W2292246305
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 0.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Arthritis Care & Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Versailles St-Quentin University and Paris Hospital CRAMIF
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Tendon Structure and Treatment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Ergonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
- Keywords
- lateral epicondylitis, occupational exposure, wrist biomechanics, elbow biomechanics, incidence, work-related musculoskeletal disorders, risk factors
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Elbow, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Occupational Diseases, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Tennis Elbow, Wrist, Incidence, Odds Ratio, Occupational Exposure
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