Summary of findings 3.
Comparing arm support with conventional mouse versus conventional mouse alone for preventing work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults
| Patient or population: patients with work‐related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper limb and neck in adults Settings: VDU users (> 20 hours per week) Intervention: arm support board (with conventional mouse) Comparison: no arm support board (with conventional mouse) | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Conventional mouse alone | Arm support with conventional mouse | |||||
| Incidence of upper body disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Follow‐up: 12 months | Study population | RR 0.87 (0.42 to 1.8) | 191 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | ||
| 333 per 1000 | 290 per 1000 (140 to 600) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 344 per 1000 | 299 per 1000 (144 to 619) | |||||
| Incidence of neck/shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Follow‐up: 12 months | Study population | RR 0.67 (0.36 to 1.24) | 186 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | ||
| 232 per 1000 | 155 per 1000 (83 to 287) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 250 per 1000 | 168 per 1000 (90 to 310) | |||||
| Incidence of right upper extremity disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Follow‐up: 12 months | Study population | OR 1.09 (0.51 to 2.29) | 178 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate1 | ||
| 185 per 1000 | 198 per 1000 (104 to 342) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 184 per 1000 | 197 per 1000 (103 to 341) | |||||
| Neck/shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Follow‐up: 12 months | The mean neck/shoulder discomfort score in the intervention groups was 0.02 standard deviations higher (0.26 lower to 0.3 higher) | 195 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | SMD 0.02 (‐0.26 to 0.3) | ||
| Right upper extremity discomfort score Questionnaire Follow‐up: median 12 months | The mean right upper extremity discomfort score in the intervention groups was 0.07 standard deviations lower (0.35 lower to 0.22 higher) | 195 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | SMD ‐0.07 (‐0.35 to 0.22) | ||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RR: risk ratio; VDU: visual display unit | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Total number of participants < 300 (small sample size for categorical variable) 2 Measure of outcome based on subjective symptoms (detection bias)