Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16136356›Full record

ArticleInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2006

Muscle strength and aerobic capacity in a representative sample of employees with and without repetitive monotonous work.

Anne Faber, Klaus Hansen, Hanne Christensen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. What characterizes cleaners sustaining good musculoskeletal health after years with physically heavy work?International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anne FaberNational Institute of Occupational Health, Lersø Park Alle 105, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark. afh@ami.dk
Klaus Hansen
Hanne Christensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of the study was to determine a possible association between the type of work individuals perform and his or her physical capacity. There was focus on whether workers performing repetitive monotonous work differ from workers with varied work tasks with respect to the physical capacity.

methodsMaximal backward extension and forward flexion torques of the trunk, maximal shoulder elevation and abduction torques, handgrip strength and aerobic capacity were measured on 423 (213 male and 210 female) Danish employees with a mean age of 40 years. Half of the group had varied work and the other half had repetitive monotonous work.

resultsThe main finding was that there is no difference in the measured physical capacities between employees with repetitive monotonous work and those compared with workers with varied work tasks.

conclusionsNo difference in the physical capacities measured in the two groups of employees was found. Reasons for this are discussed.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureAdultDenmarkExerciseFemaleHand StrengthHumansIsometric ContractionMaleMiddle AgedTorque

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.