↓ Skip to main content

Dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and osteoarthritis of the hip – a meta-analysis applying an external reference population for exposure assignment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
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.
Title
Dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and osteoarthritis of the hip – a meta-analysis applying an external reference population for exposure assignment
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12891-018-2085-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Seidler, Laura Lüben, Janice Hegewald, Ulrich Bolm-Audorff, Annekatrin Bergmann, Falk Liebers, Christina Ramdohr, Karla Romero Starke, Alice Freiberg, Susanne Unverzagt

Abstract

There is consistent evidence from observational studies of an association between occupational lifting and carrying of heavy loads and the diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis. However, due to the heterogeneity of exposure estimates considered in single studies, a dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and hip osteoarthritis could not be determined so far. This study aimed to analyze the dose-response relationship between cumulative physical workload and hip osteoarthritis by replacing the exposure categories of the included studies with cumulative exposure values of an external reference population. Our meta-regression analysis was based on a recently conducted systematic review (Bergmann A, Bolm-Audorff U, Krone D, Seidler A, Liebers F, Haerting J, Freiberg A, Unverzagt S, Dtsch Arztebl Int 114:581-8, 2017). The main analysis of our meta-regression comprised six case-control studies for men and five for women. The population control subjects of a German multicentre case-control study (Seidler A, Bergmann A, Jäger M, Ellegast R, Ditchen D, Elsner G, Grifka J, Haerting J, Hofmann F, Linhardt O, Luttmann A, Michaelis M, Petereit-Haack G, Schumann B, Bolm-Audorff U, BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:48, 2009) served as the reference population. Based on the sex-specific cumulative exposure percentiles of the reference population, we assigned exposure values to each category of the included studies using three different cumulative exposure parameters. To estimate the doubling dose (the amount of physical workload to double the risk of hip osteoarthritis) on the basis of all available case-control-studies, meta-regression analyses were conducted based on the linear association between exposure values of the reference population and the logarithm of reported odds ratios (ORs) from the included studies. In men, the risk to develop hip osteoarthritis was increased by an OR of 1.98 (95% CI 1.20-3.29) per 10,000 tons of weights ≥20 kg handled, 2.08 (95% CI 1.22-3.53) per 10,000 tons handled > 10 times per day and 8.64 (95% CI 1.87-39.91) per 106 operations. These estimations result in doubling dosages of 10,100 tons of weights ≥20 kg handled, 9500 tons ≥20 kg handled > 10 times per day and 321,400 operations of weights ≥20 kg. There was no linear association between manual handling of weights at work and risk to develop hip osteoarthritis in women. Under specific conditions, the application of an external reference population allows for the derivation of a dose-response relationship despite high exposure heterogeneities in the pooled studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 August 2020.
All research outputs
#6,311,423
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,191
of 4,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,711
of 330,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#15
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 330,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.