48
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association between work-related biomechanical risk factors and the occurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of systematic reviews and a meta-analysis of current research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Occupational risks for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) have been examined in various occupations, and several systematic reviews (SRs) have been published on this topic. There has been no critical appraisal or synthesis of the evidence in the SRs. The aims of this study are (1) to synthesise the observational evidence and evaluate the methodological quality of SRs that assess the effect of biomechanical risk factors on the development of CTS in workers, (2) to provide an update of current primary research on this association, (3) to assess a potential dose-response relationship.

          Methods

          We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and the reference lists of articles. The first step covered SRs (1998–2014), and the second step covered current primary studies (2011–2014). The methodological quality of the SRs was evaluated by using the AMSTAR-R tool; primary studies were assessed using a list of 20 items. A qualitative approach was used for synthesising evidence. In addition, we undertook a meta-analysis of the primary studies to determine risk ratios in the dose-response relationship.

          Results

          We identified ten SRs that covered a total of 143 original studies. Seven primary studies met the criteria for inclusion, of which four provided longitudinal data. We found high quality of evidence for risk factors such as repetition, force and combined exposures. Moderate quality of evidence was observed for vibration, and low quality of evidence was found for wrist postures. An association between computer use and CTS could not be established. Recent primary studies supported the existence of a significant relationship between CTS and repetition, force and combined exposure. The meta-analysis of current research revealed a dose-response relationship between CTS and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists’ (ACGIH) threshold limit value (TLV) for hand-activity level (HAL). Those between the action limit and TLV and above TLV had RR of 1.5 (95 % CI 1.02–2.31) and RR 2.0 (95 % CI 1.46–2.82), respectively.

          Conclusions

          Occupational biomechanical factors play a substantial role in the causation of CTS. Data from current primary studies on dose-response suggest that the risk of CTS increases with the ACGIH TLV levels.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-015-0685-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome in a general population.

          Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a cause of pain, numbness, and tingling in the hands and is an important cause of work disability. Although high prevalence rates of CTS in certain occupations have been reported, little is known about its prevalence in the general population. To estimate the prevalence of CTS in a general population. General health mail survey sent in February 1997, inquiring about symptoms of pain, numbness, and tingling in any part of the body, followed 2 months later by clinical examination and nerve conduction testing of responders reporting symptoms in the median nerve distribution in the hands, as well as of a sample of those not reporting these symptoms (controls). A region in southern Sweden with a population of 170000. A sex- and age-stratified sample of 3000 subjects (age range, 25-74 years) was randomly selected from the general population register and sent the survey, with a response rate of 83% (n = 2466; 46% men). Of the symptomatic responders, 81% underwent clinical examination. Population prevalence rates, calculated as the number of symptomatic responders diagnosed on examination as having clinically certain CTS and/or electrophysiological median neuropathy divided by the total number of responders. Of the 2466 responders, 354 reported pain, numbness, and/or tingling in the median nerve distribution in the hands (prevalence, 14.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0%-15.8%). On clinical examination, 94 symptomatic subjects were diagnosed as having clinically certain CTS (prevalence, 3.8%; 95% CI, 3.1%-4.6%). Nerve conduction testing showed median neuropathy at the carpal tunnel in 120 symptomatic subjects (prevalence, 4.9%; 95% CI, 4.1%-5.8%). Sixty-six symptomatic subjects had clinically and electrophysiologically confirmed CTS (prevalence, 2.7%; 95% CI, 2.1%-3.4%). Of 125 control subjects clinically examined, electrophysiological median neuropathy was found in 23 (18.4%; 95% CI, 12.0%-26.3%). Symptoms of pain, numbness, and tingling in the hands are common in the general population. Based on our data, 1 in 5 symptomatic subjects would be expected to have CTS based on clinical examination and electrophysiologic testing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Carpal tunnel syndrome: prevalence in the general population.

            To study the prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in the general population and the value of brachialgia paraesthetica nocturna (BPN) in diagnosing CTS, an age and sex stratified random sample of 715 subjects was taken from the population register of Maastricht (The Netherlands) and surrounding villages, between September 1983 and July 1985. The response rate was 70%. Of these, 12 CTS cases had already been diagnosed. Of the remaining subjects, 64 (13 men, 51 women) woke up because of BPN. Among these subjects 1 man and 23 women were found to have CTS. The prevalence rate of undetected CTS was 5.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.5-8.1%] in adult women; 3.4 percent (95% CI: 1.5-5.3%) had already been diagnosed as CTS. The overall prevalence rate for men was 0.6% (95% CI 0.02-3.4%). These figures have to be regarded as minimal estimates. The overall diagnostic value of BPN for CTS was 38%, while for women only this was 45% (95% CI: 31-60%).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance

              Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the “systematic review”. The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias. Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.kozak@uke.de
                grita.schedlbauer@bgw-online.de
                tanja.wirth@bgw-online.de
                ulrike.euler@mailbox.tu-dresden.de
                c.westermann@uke.de
                a.nienhaus@uke.de
                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2474
                1 September 2015
                1 September 2015
                2015
                : 16
                : 231
                Affiliations
                [ ]Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (CVcare), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
                [ ]Institution for Statutory Accident Insurance and Prevention in the Health and Welfare Services, Hamburg, Germany
                [ ]Institute and Policlinic for Occupational and Social Medicine (IPAS), Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                Article
                685
                10.1186/s12891-015-0685-0
                4553935
                26323649
                9a107d69-a5b7-4e2f-b077-84d8c9777fb5
                © Kozak et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 6 March 2015
                : 14 August 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article