You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
An Evidence-Based Multidisciplinary Practice Guideline to Reduce the Workload due to Lifting for Preventing Work-Related Low Back Pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2052-4374-26-16 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P Paul FM Kuijer, Jos HAM Verbeek, Bart Visser, Leo AM Elders, Nico Van Roden, Marion ER Van den Wittenboer, Marian Lebbink, Alex Burdorf, Carel TJ Hulshof |
| Abstract |
We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker- and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3-25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 14% |
| Sweden | 2 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| Peru | 1 | 5% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 81% |
| Scientists | 4 | 19% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 180 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 14% |
| Researcher | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 22% |
| Unknown | 44 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 14% |
| Engineering | 25 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Unknown | 51 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,859,176
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#16
of 197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,312
of 243,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,029 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.