-
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Sep 2017This study systematically summarizes quantitative imaging biomarker research in non-traumatic neck and shoulder musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). There were two research... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This study systematically summarizes quantitative imaging biomarker research in non-traumatic neck and shoulder musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). There were two research questions: 1) Are there quantitative imaging biomarkers associated with the presence of neck and shoulder MSDs?, 2) Are there quantitative imaging biomarkers associated with the severity of neck and shoulder MSDs?
METHODS
PubMed and SCOPUS were used for the literature search. One hundred and twenty-five studies met primary inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from 49 sufficient quality studies.
RESULTS
Most of the 125 studies were cross-sectional and utilized convenience samples of patients as both cases and controls. Only half controlled for potential confounders via exclusion or in the analysis. Approximately one-third reported response rates. In sufficient quality articles, 82% demonstrated at least one statistically significant association between the MSD(s) and biomarker(s) studied. The literature synthesis suggested that neck muscle size may be decreased in neck pain, and trapezius myalgia and neck/shoulder pain may be associated with reduced vascularity in the trapezius and reduced trapezius oxygen saturation at rest and in response to upper extremity tasks. Reduced vascularity in the supraspinatus tendon may also be a feature in rotator cuff tears. Five of eight studies showed an association between a quantitative imaging marker and MSD severity.
CONCLUSIONS
Although research on quantitative imaging biomarkers is still in a nascent stage, some MSD biomarkers were identified. There are limitations in the articles examined, including possible selection bias and inattention to potentially confounding factors. Recommendations for future studies are provided.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Diagnostic Imaging; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Neck Pain; Rotator Cuff Injuries; Shoulder Joint; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 28899384
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1694-y -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Apr 2010This review examines the evidence for an association between computer work and neck and upper extremity disorders (except carpal tunnel syndrome). (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This review examines the evidence for an association between computer work and neck and upper extremity disorders (except carpal tunnel syndrome).
METHODS
A systematic critical review of studies of computer work and musculoskeletal disorders verified by a physical examination was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies (26 articles) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Results show limited evidence for a causal relationship between computer work per se, computer mouse and keyboard time related to a diagnosis of wrist tendonitis, and for an association between computer mouse time and forearm disorders. Limited evidence was also found for a causal relationship between computer work per se and computer mouse time related to tension neck syndrome, but the evidence for keyboard time was insufficient. Insufficient evidence was found for an association between other musculoskeletal diagnoses of the neck and upper extremities, including shoulder tendonitis and epicondylitis, and any aspect of computer work.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited epidemiological evidence for an association between aspects of computer work and some of the clinical diagnoses studied. None of the evidence was considered as moderate or strong and there is a need for more and better documentation.
Topics: Arthralgia; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Computers; Cumulative Trauma Disorders; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Neck Pain; Occupational Diseases; Shoulder Pain; Tennis Elbow; Tension-Type Headache
PubMed: 20429925
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-79 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2023Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a complex condition that is mainly treated with analgesic drugs. However, antidepressant intervention is also an important factor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a complex condition that is mainly treated with analgesic drugs. However, antidepressant intervention is also an important factor in the treatment of CMP. Duloxetine is an effective treatment option for patients with CMP as its antidepressant effect. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in treating CMP.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library from inception to May, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of duloxetine versus placebo in patients with CMP were included. We identified 13 articles and studied a population of 4201 participants in 4 countries.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis showed that the duloxetine has statistically significant compared with the placebo control, benefits on 24-hour average pain, living quality, physical function, and global impressions and there was no difference in the incidence of serious adverse event. In general, duloxetine can improve mood and pain level at the same time.
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows a significant contribution of duloxetine to CMP symptom relief. This meta-analysis improved that duloxetine can significantly reduce the pain level of patients, improve depressive symptoms and global impression, and has no obvious serious adverse reactions. However, additional studies are required to confirm the relationship between psychological diseases and chronic pain and explore their internal links.
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Musculoskeletal Pain; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 37198620
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06488-6 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Jun 2018Musculoskeletal injuries and musculoskeletal pain are prevalent among nurses compared to many other occupational groups. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Musculoskeletal injuries and musculoskeletal pain are prevalent among nurses compared to many other occupational groups.
OBJECTIVE
To identify interventions that may be effective at reducing the prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal injuries and pain in registered nurses.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Seven databases were systematically searched, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Academic Search Complete, Health Source Nursing, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
REVIEW METHODS
Peer-reviewed journal articles reporting interventions designed to reduce the occurrence of musculoskeletal injuries and pain among registered nurses, published between January 2004 and June 2016, were eligible for inclusion. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, as well as studies implementing before-after designs were included. Studies investigating interventions in samples predominately comprised of nursing aides or non-nursing personnel were excluded. Relevant articles were collected and critically analysed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project methodology. Two reviewers independently extracted data and performed quality appraisals for each study. A narrative synthesis of study findings was performed.
RESULTS
Twenty studies met criteria for inclusion in the review. Types of interventions reported included: patient lift systems (N = 8), patient handling training (N = 3), multi-component interventions (N = 7), cognitive behavioural therapy (N = 1), and unstable shoes (N = 1). Only two studies received a 'strong' quality rating according to quality assessment criteria. One of these found no evidence for the effectiveness of patient handling training; the other found preliminary support for unstable shoes reducing self-reported pain and disability among nurses. Overall, evidence for each intervention type was limited.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an absence of high quality published studies investigating interventions to protect nurses from musculoskeletal injuries and pain. Further research (including randomised controlled trials) is needed to identify interventions that may reduce the high rates of injury and pain among nurses.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Nursing Staff; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 29605754
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.03.018 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Oct 2021Musculoskeletal pain is common among children and adolescents. Despite the lack of evidence regarding harms and benefits, musculoskeletal pain is often managed with pain... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Musculoskeletal pain is common among children and adolescents. Despite the lack of evidence regarding harms and benefits, musculoskeletal pain is often managed with pain medication. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the prevalence of pain medication use for musculoskeletal pain among children and adolescents and the factors and side effects associated with use.
CONTENT
Three databases (EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO) were systematically searched to identify studies designed to examine the prevalence, frequency or factors associated with the use of pain medication for musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents (aged 6-19 years). The included studies were assessed for study quality and data were extracted.
SUMMARY
The search initially provided 20,135 studies. After screening titles, abstracts and full-texts, 20 studies were included. In school settings, 8-42% of children used pain medication for musculoskeletal pain, and 67-75% of children in sports clubs and from pain clinics used pain medication. The most consistent factors associated with the use of pain medications were pain characteristics and psychological factors (e.g. being bullied, low-self-esteem), while mixed evidence was found for increasing age and female gender. Only two studies reported on the duration of use and only one study on adverse effects related to the use of pain medication.
OUTLOOK
We found that 8-42% of adolescents from school-based samples use pain medication for MSK pain, while the prevalence among adolescents from sports clubs and pain clinics is higher (67-75%). Pain characteristics (pain duration, severity, intensity, disability levels and the presence of ≥2 pain conditions or multisite pain) and psychological factors were associated with a higher use of pain medication, while for higher age and female gender the evidence of association was mixed. Future studies should systematically collect information on the type, duration of use of pain medication and side effects to confirm the findings of this review.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Female; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Prevalence
PubMed: 34506696
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2021-0033 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability. Physical work environment There was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.096 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). Individual approach There was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term. Organisational level No studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level. Multi-component approach There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.
Topics: Adult; Ergonomics; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sedentary Behavior; Standing Position; Walking; Workplace
PubMed: 31742666
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012487.pub2 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Jul 2023Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are widespread in many countries and their huge burden on the society has necessitated innovative approaches such as digital health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are widespread in many countries and their huge burden on the society has necessitated innovative approaches such as digital health interventions. However, no study has evaluated the findings of cost-effectiveness of these interventions.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to synthesize the cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with MSDs.
METHODS
Electronic databases including MEDLINE, AMED, CIHAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Centre for Review and Dissemination were searched for cost-effectiveness of digital health published between inception and June 2022 following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. References of all retrieved articles were checked for relevant studies. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Results were presented using a narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Using the QHES instrument, we found that the mean score of the overall quality of the included studies was 82.5. Included studies were on nonspecific chronic low back pain (n=4), chronic pain (n=2), knee and hip osteoarthritis (n=3), and fibromyalgia (n=1). The economic perspectives adopted in the included studies were societal (n=4), societal and health care (n=3), and health care (n=3). Of the 10 included studies, 5 (50%) used quality-adjusted life-years as the outcome measures. Except 1 study, all the included studies reported that digital health interventions were cost-effective compared with the control group. In a random effects meta-analysis (n=2), the pooled disability and quality-adjusted life-years were -0.176 (95% CI -0.317 to -0.035; P=.01) and 3.855 (95% CI 2.023 to 5.687; P<.001), respectively. The meta-analysis (n=2) for the costs was in favor of the digital health intervention compared with control: US $417.52 (95% CI -522.01 to -313.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Studies indicate that digital health interventions are cost-effective for people with MSDs. Our findings suggest that digital health intervention could help improve access to treatment for patients with MSDs and as a result improve their health outcomes. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the use of these interventions for patients with MSDs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42021253221; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=253221.
Topics: Humans; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Qualitative Research; Fibromyalgia
PubMed: 37410542
DOI: 10.2196/41113 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Dec 2023Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that occurs in the joints, musculo-soft tissue, spine or bones for more than three months...
PURPOSE
Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that occurs in the joints, musculo-soft tissue, spine or bones for more than three months and is not completely curable. Although topical Chinese patent medicine (CPM) is the most extensively utilized medication in Asia and is widely used for pain management, its efficacy remains controversial. This article presents a systematic review of clinical studies on the therapeutic properties of topical CPM for CMP patients to better inform clinical decision-making and provide additional and safer treatment options for patients with CMP.
METHOD
We performed a comprehensive search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, web of science and Chinese databases (CNKI and WanFang data) from 2010 to 2022. In all the studies, knee osteoarthritis, cervical spondylosis, low back pain, and periarthritis of shoulder met the International Pain Association definition of chronic musculoskeletal pain. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using topical CPM primarily for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. To determine the effect of topical CPM on clinical symptoms, we extracted the Visual Analog Scale (VAS, range 0-10) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain scores (WOMAC pain, range 0-20), in which the lower the score, the better the results. We also accepted the comprehensive outcome criteria developed by the Chinese National Institute of Rheumatology as an endpoint (total effectiveness rate, range 0-100%, higher score = better outcome), which assesses the overall pain, physical function and wellness. Finally, trial sequential analysis of VAS pain score and total effectiveness rate was performed using TSA software.
RESULTS
Twenty-six randomized controlled trials (n = 3180 participants) compared topical CPM with oral Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) (n = 15), topical NSAIDs (n = 9), physiotherapy (n = 5), exercise therapy (n = 4), and intra-articular Sodium hyaluronate injection (n = 2). Sixteen studies found that topical CPM was statistically significant in improving CMP pain (measured by VAS pain and Womac pain scores)(p < 0.05), and 12 studies found topical CPMs to be more clinically effective (assessed by ≥ 30% reduction in symptom severity) in treating patients with CMP (p < 0.05). Trial sequential analysis indicates that the current available evidence is robust, and further studies cannot reverse this result. In most of the studies, randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding were not sufficiently described, and no placebo-controlled trials were identified.
CONCLUSION
Most studies showed superior analgesic effects of topical CPM over various control treatments, suggesting that topical CPM may be effective for CMP and is an additional, safe and reasonable treatment option. These reported benefits should be validated in higher-quality RCTs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Musculoskeletal Pain; Nonprescription Drugs; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Exercise Therapy
PubMed: 38124185
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-07072-8 -
Cancers Jan 2021Treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is fundamental in women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in the adjuvant as well as the metastatic setting. Even... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is fundamental in women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer in the adjuvant as well as the metastatic setting. Even though it is considered to be a well-tolerated therapy, aromatase inhibitor-associated musculoskeletal syndrome (AIMSS) is the most common adverse event encountered by breast cancer patients. CDK4/6 inhibitors have emerged as a new treatment strategy in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, the impact of CDK4/6 inhibitors on musculoskeletal symptoms caused by AIs is not well-defined.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to identify the frequency of joint symptoms induced by treatment with AIs and CDK4/6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Eligible articles were identified by a search of existing literature for the period 2005/01/01-2021/01/01; The algorithm consisted of a predefined combination of the following keywords "breast", "cancer", "aromatase inhibitors", "CDK4/6", "phase III".
SELECTION CRITERIA
This study was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All randomized controlled Phase III trials (RCTs) evaluating the administration of third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and CDK4/6 inhibitors in postmenopausal women in the metastatic setting were considered eligible for this review.
DATA COLLECTION
Overall, 16 randomized control trials (RCTs) were retrieved, of which nine studies explored the administration of AIs in the metastatic setting and seven studies investigated the combination of CDK4/6 inhibitors and AIs. Arthralgia was reported in 1-47% of patients treated with AIs and 5.8-33.3% of patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors. Myalgias occurred in 2-23.7% of patients receiving AIs compared with 4.8-11.9% of patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors. The incidence of back pain was 7-32.9% vs. 2.9-8.5% in postmenopausal women with metastatic disease treated with AIs and CDK4/6 inhibitors, respectively. Bone pain was reported in 7-32.9% of postmenopausal women treated with AIs and 2.9-8.5% of women treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors.
CONCLUSIONS
AI treatment-induced musculoskeletal syndrome is an adverse event affecting over one-third (20-47%) of postmenopausal patients treated with AIs that often leads to treatment discontinuation. Data from RCTs provide evidence that the incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms is relatively decreased upon CDK4/6 inhibitor administration. CDK4/6 inhibitors may provide a protective role against AIMSS development.
PubMed: 33530456
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13030465 -
Iranian Journal of Public Health Apr 2021Musculoskeletal disorders are responsible for significant problem for workers' health. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Musculoskeletal disorders are responsible for significant problem for workers' health. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among mining workers.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis study were designed in 2020 (from Jan to Mar). The researchers searched five international databases Medline/PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science. All analyzes were performed using STATA statistical software.
RESULTS
The search results were 447 articles and after screening stage finally 50 studies were included in review. The highest number of studies (26 studies) reported the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders of upper back and 4 studies reported the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders of the arms and ankles & feet. The results of meta-analysis based on prevalence in different organs showed that the highest prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders was in the upper back and the lowest in the knees with a prevalence of 50.39% (CI 95%: 31.23-54.73%) and 16.03% (CI 95%: 11.78-20.28%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among miners is relatively high. Therefore, supervisors and mine managers should pay more attention to reducing musculoskeletal disorders and increasing the ergonomic level of mines in order to increase workers' health.
PubMed: 34183917
DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v50i4.5992