Summary of findings 2. Arm support with conventional mouse versus conventional mouse alone.
| Patient or population: office workers Settings: VDU users (more than 20 hours per week) Intervention: arm support board (with conventional computer 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 | |||||
| No arm support board (with conventional mouse) | Arm support board (with conventional mouse) | |||||
| Incidence of upper body disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Follow‐up: 12 months | 333 per 1000 | 290 per 1000 (140 to 600) | RR 0.87 (0.42 to 1.80) | 191 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Incidence of neck or shoulder disorder Questionnaire followed by medical examination Follow‐up: 12 months | 232 per 1000 | 211 per 1000 (28 to 1000) | RR 0.91 (0.12 to 6.98) | 186 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | |
| Incidence of right upper extremity disorders Questionnaire followed by medical examination Follow‐up: 12 months | 185 per 1000 | 195 per 1000 (116 to 308) | OR 1.07 (0.58 to 1.96) | 178 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate2 | |
| Neck or shoulder discomfort score Questionnaire Follow‐up: 12 months | The mean neck or shoulder discomfort score in the intervention groups was 0.02 standard deviations higher (0.26 lower to 0.3 higher) 5 | 195 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3 | SMD 0.02 (−0.26 to 0.30) ‐ no significant difference | ||
| 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) 5 | 195 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low2,3 | SMD −0.07 (−0.35 to 0.22) ‐ no significant difference | ||
|
Right upper‐limb strain scale Questionnaire Follow‐up: 6 weeks |
The mean right upper‐limb strain scale in the intervention groups was 3.00 lower (34.47 lower to 28.47 higher) 5 |
14 (1 study) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | |||
| Work related function | no data | no data | ||||
| *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% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; SMD: standardised mean difference; MD: mean difference | ||||||
| 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 Downgraded one level because of high I² value (more than 50%), indicating heterogeneity. 2 Downgraded one level because of total number of participants less than 300 (small sample size for a categorical variable). 3 Downgraded one level because of limitations in studies (measure of outcome based on subjective symptoms (detection bias)). 4 Downgraded one level because of there is no information on sequence generation (selection bias). 5 Lower score indicates beneficial effects.