CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesWorkplace Health and Well-being

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Effects of Workplace Interventions on Low Back Pain in Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Russo, Fabrizio, Papalia, Giuseppe Francesco, Vadalà, Gianluca, Fontana, Luca, Iavicoli, Sergio, Papalia, Rocco, Denaro, Vincenzo·2021·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph182312614PMC PMC8657220
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the effects of workplace interventions (WI) on clinical outcomes related to low back pain (LBP) in a worker population, and to assess socio-economic parameters as participants on sick leave, days of sick leave, and return to work following WI. A systematic literature search was performed to select randomized clinical trials that investigated the effectiveness of WI on return to work, sick leave, and working capacity of workers affected by nonspecific LBP. Fourteen articles were included in the review and meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed improvements in pain (p = 0.004), disability (p = 0.0008), fear-avoidance for psychical activity (p = 0.004), and quality of life (p = 0.001 for physical scale and p = 0.03 for mental scale) for patients who underwent WI compared to controls. Moreover, the pain reduction following WI was statistically significant in the healthcare workers’ group (p = 0.005), but not in the other workers’ group. The participants on sick leave and the number of days of sick leave decreased in the WI group without statistical significance (p = 0.85 and p = 0.10, respectively). Finally, LBP recurrence was significantly reduced in the WI group (p = 0.006). WI led to a significant improvement of clinical outcomes in a workers’ population affected by LBP.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ijerph182312614

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Outcome measurements.
Figure 2 Outcome measurements.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Participants on sick leave.
Figure 3 Participants on sick leave.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Days of sick leave.
Figure 4 Days of sick leave.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Return to work.
Figure 5 Return to work.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Low back pain recurrence.
Figure 6 Low back pain recurrence.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Subgroup analysis for low back pain.
Figure 7 Subgroup analysis for low back pain.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 35 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Russo, F., Papalia, G. F., Vadalà, G., Fontana, L., Iavicoli, S., Papalia, R., & Denaro, V.
Affiliations
  • Università Campus Bio-Medico (IT)
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
  • Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (IT)
Corresponding author
  • Russo, Fabrizio
  • Papalia, Giuseppe Francesco
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-11-30
Volume
18
Issue
23
Pages
12614
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph182312614
PMC
PMC8657220
OpenAlex
W3215031467
Cited by
63
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione Contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (BRiC-2018 ID3)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
low back pain, workplace interventions, non-specific low back pain, return to work, sick leave, fear-avoidance beliefs, quality of life, disability, healthcare workers, occupational health
MeSH terms
Back Pain, Humans, Quality of Life, Low Back Pain, Workplace, Sick Leave

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