Risk Factors for Neck and Upper Extremity Disorders among Computers Users and the Effect of Interventions An Overview of Systematic Reviews 英文参考文献.docVIP

下载本文档

2
0
约5.3万字
约 11页
2017-05-13 发布于上海
举报
版权申诉

Risk Factors for Neck and Upper Extremity Disorders among Computers Users and the Effect of Interventions An Overview of Systematic Reviews 英文参考文献.doc

1、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。。
2、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击这里二次下载。
3、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
4、该文档为VIP文档，如果想要下载，成为VIP会员后，下载免费。
5、成为VIP后，下载本文档将扣除1次下载权益。下载后，不支持退款、换文档。如有疑问请联系我们。
6、成为VIP后，您将拥有八大权益，权益包括：VIP文档下载权益、阅读免打扰、文档格式转换、高级专利检索、专属身份标志、高级客服、多端互通、版权登记。
7、VIP文档为合作方或网友上传，每下载1次，网站将根据用户上传文档的质量评分、类型等，对文档贡献者给予高额补贴、流量扶持。如果你也想贡献VIP文档。上传文档

Risk Factors for Neck and Upper Extremity Disorders among Computers Users and the Effect of Interventions An Overview of Systematic Reviews 英文参考文献

RiskFactorsforNeckandUpperExtremityDisorders amongComputersUsersandtheEffectofInterventions: AnOverviewofSystematicReviews JohanH.Andersen1*,NilsFallentin2,JaneF.Thomsen3,SigurdMikkelsen3 1Danish Ramazzini Centre, Department of Occupational Medicine, Regional Hospital Herning, Herning, Denmark,, 2Center for Physical Ergonomics, Liberty Mutual ResearchInstituteforSafety,Hopkinton,Massachusetts,UnitedStatesofAmerica,3DepartmentofOccupationalandEnvironmentalMedicine,CopenhagenUniversity HospitalBispebjerg,Copenhagen,Denmark Abstract Background: Tosummarizesystematicreviewsthat1)assessedtheevidenceforcausalrelationshipsbetweencomputer work and the occurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (UEMSDs), or 2) reportedoninterventionstudiesamongcomputerusers/orofficeworkers. Methodology/Principal Findings: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for reviews published between1999and2010.Additionalpublicationswereprovidedbycontentareaexperts.Theprimaryauthorextractedall data using a purpose-built form, while two of the authors evaluated the quality of the reviews using recommended standard criteria from AMSTAR; disagreements were resolved by discussion. The quality of evidence syntheses in the includedreviewswasassessedqualitativelyforeachoutcomeandfortheinterventions. Altogether,1,349reviewtitleswere identified, 47 reviews were retrieved for full text relevance assessment, and 17 reviews were finally included as being relevantandofsufficientquality.Thedegreesoffocusandrigorousnessofthese17reviewswerehighlyvariable.Three reviewsonriskfactorsforcarpaltunnelsyndromewereratedmoderatetohighquality,8reviewsonriskfactorsforUEMSDs rangedfromlowtomoderate/highquality,and6reviewsoninterventionstudieswereofmoderatetohighquality.The qualityoftheevidenceforcomputeruseasariskfactorforCTSwasinsufficient,whiletheevidenceforcomputeruseand UEMSDswasmoderateregardingpaincomplaintsandlimitedforspecificmusculoskeletaldisorders.From