Summary of findings 7. Supplementary breaks versus normal breaks.

Patient or population: office workers Settings: office setting Intervention: supplementary breaks versus normal breaks
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 breaks	Supplementary breaks
Incidence or prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders	no data	no data
After shift discomfort rating for neck (range 1 to 5) Self‐reported questionnaire Follow‐up: 4‐8 weeks	Mean discomfort rating was 1.55 4	The mean after shifts discomfort rating for neck (4‐8 weeks) in the intervention groups was 0.25 lower (0.40 to 0.11 lower)5		186 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3
After shift discomfort rating for right shoulder or upper arm Self‐reported questionnaire Follow‐up: 4‐8 weeks	Mean discomfort rating was 1.55 4	The mean after shifts discomfort ratings for right shoulder or upper arm (4‐8 weeks) in the intervention groups was 0.33 lower (0.46 to 0.19 lower)5		186 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3
After shift discomfort rating for right forearm or wrist or hand Self‐reported questionnaire Follow‐up: 4‐8 weeks	Mean discomfort rating was 1.45 4	The mean after shifts discomfort ratings for right forearm or wrist or hand (4‐8 weeks) in the intervention groups was 0.18 lower (0.29 to 0.08 lower)5		186 (2 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2,3
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 of limitations in studies (possibility of carry‐over effects of cross‐over trials).
 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 small number of participants (less than 400) in analysis using continuous variables.
 ⁴ Taken from figure 1 in Galinsky 2007.
 ⁵ Lower discomfort rating indicates beneficial effect.