↓ Skip to main content

French good practice guidelines for medical and occupational surveillance of the low back pain risk among workers exposed to manual handling of loads

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
French good practice guidelines for medical and occupational surveillance of the low back pain risk among workers exposed to manual handling of loads
Published in
Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40557-015-0069-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Audrey Petit, Jean-Baptiste Fassier, Sandrine Rousseau, Philippe Mairiaux, Yves Roquelaure

Abstract

Several clinical practice guidelines related to the assessment and management of low back pain (LBP) have been published with varied scopes and methods. This paper summarises the first French occupational guidelines for management of work-related LBP (October 2013). There main originality is to treat all the three stages of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of work-related LBP. The guidelines were written by a multidisciplinary working group of 24 experts, according to the Clinical Practice Guidelines method proposed by French National Health Authority, and reviewed by a multidisciplinary peer review committee of 50 experts. Recommendations were based on a large systematic review of the literature carried out from 1990 to 2012 and rated as strong (Level A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on expert consensus (D) according to their level of evidence. It is recommended to deliver reassuring and consistent information concerning LBP prognosis (Level B); to perform a clinical examination looking for medical signs of severity related to LBP (Level A), encourage continuation or resumption of physical activity (Level A), identify any changes in working conditions and evaluate the occupational impact of LBP (Level D). In case of persistent/recurrent LBP, assess prognostic factors likely to influence progression to chronic LBP, prolonged disability and delayed return to work (Level A). In case of prolonged/repeated sick leave, evaluate the pain, functional disability and their impact and main risk factors for prolonged work disability (Level A), promote return to work measures and inter professional coordination (Level D). These good practice guidelines are primarily intended for professionals of occupational health but also for treating physicians and paramedical personnel participating in the management of LBP, workers and employers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Ghana 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Researcher 8 9%
Librarian 6 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Engineering 6 7%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 26 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 August 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#134
of 197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,924
of 275,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 275,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.