risk factors for neck and upper extremity disorders among computers users and the effect of interventions an overview of systematic reviews颈部和上肢障碍的风险因素在电脑用户和干预措施的效果系统评价的概述.pdfVIP

下载本文档

1
0
约7.94万字
约 11页
2017-09-09 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颈部和上肢障碍的风险因素在电脑用户和干预措施的效果系统评价的概述.pdf

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颈部和上肢障碍的风险因素在电脑用户和干预措施的效果系统评价的概述

Risk Factors for Neck and Upper Extremity Disorders among Computers Users and the Effect of Interventions: An Overview of Systematic Reviews 1 2 3 3 Johan H. Andersen *, Nils Fallentin , Jane F. Thomsen , Sigurd Mikkelsen 1 Danish Ramazzini Centre, Department of Occupational Medicine, Regional Hospital Herning, Herning, Denmark,, 2 Center for Physical Ergonomics, Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety, Hopkinton, Massachusetts, United States of America, 3 Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, Copenhagen, Denmark Abstract Background: To summarize systematic reviews that 1) assessed the evidence for causal relationships between computer work and the occurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (UEMSDs), or 2) reported on intervention studies among computer users/or office workers. Methodology/Principal Findings: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for reviews published between 1999 and 2010. Additional publications were provided by content area experts. The primary author extracted all 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 included reviews was assessed qualitatively for each outcome and for the interventions. Altogether, 1,349 review titles were identified, 47 reviews were retrieved for full text relevance assessment, and 17 reviews were finally included as being relevant and of sufficient quality. The degrees of focus and rigorousness of these 17 reviews were highly variable. Three