Summary of findings 6. Sit‐stand workstation versus normal workstation.
| Patient or population: office workers Settings: office setting Intervention: sit‐stand workstation versus normal workstation | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Normal workstation | Sit‐stand workstation | |||||
| Incidence or prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders | no data | no data | ||||
| Intensity of neck and shoulder discomfort and pain Self‐reported questionnaire Follow‐up: 8 weeks | The mean discomfort and pain score was 1.9 | The mean intensity of neck and shoulder discomfort and pain in the intervention groups was 0.3 lower (1.69 lower to 1.09 higher)5 | 46 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3,4 | ||
| 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; | ||||||
| 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 the allocation of participants to the intervention and control arm were not concealed. 2 Downgraded one level because of limitations in studies (measured of outcome was based on subjective symptoms (detection bias)). 3 Downgraded one level because of limitations in studies (lack of prognostic balance: male/female participants were not distributed equally between intervention and control group). 4 Downgraded one level because of small number of participants (less than 400) in analysis using continuous variables. 5 Lower discomfort score indicates beneficial effects.