ObjectivesStudies from western countries show that dentists are vulnerable to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) of the neck and upper extremities, but little is known about their epidemiology among members of this rapidly growing profession in China. This study aims to investigate the prevalence of WMSDs and identify potential risk factors associated with their occurrence in the dental profession in China.Setting and participantsA cross-sectional survey was carried out in 52 different hospitals in a large metropolitan city in China. A total of 304 questionnaires were distributed to respondents identified via stratified random sampling and 272 dentists (121 females and 151 males) completed the survey. The response rate was 89.5%.OutcomesVisual analogue score was used to record neck and upper limb musculoskeletal symptoms on a body chart. Work-related risk factors, including physical and psychosocial factors, were accounted for in the regression analysis.Results88% of the dentists reported at least one musculoskeletal disorder and 83.8% suffered from neck pain. In the multivariate analyses, working hours per day were associated with neck pain (OR=1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.98). Inability to select the appropriate size of dental instrument was associated with shoulder (OR=2.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 4.32) and wrist/hand (OR=2.47; 95% CI 1.15 to 5.32) pain. As for psychosocial factors, high job demand was associated with symptoms in the shoulder (OR=1.09; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.18), elbow (OR=1.11; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19) and wrist/hand (OR=1.09; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17). Regular physical exercise was associated with decreased neck pain (OR=0.37; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.00).ConclusionsThe prevalence of WMSDs among Chinese dentists is high. Specifically, long working hours, inability to select the appropriate size of dental instrument and high job demand are the most significant risk factors.

No abstract

Background Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common cause of pain, numbness and tingling in the wrist and hand region and is associated with repetitive wrist and hand use in office workers. However, scarce knowledge exists about the epidemiology of clinically confirmed CTS among Chinese office workers. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of wrist/hand symptoms and CTS in office workers in China and to identify associated risk factors. Methods A cross-sectional survey was carried out in a metropolitan city in China involving 969 respondents (aged 17–49 years) from 30 workplaces. A questionnaire was distributed to each participant to collect their demographic, work-related physical and psychosocial factors, and wrist and hand symptoms. The wrist and hand pain/numbness symptoms were marked on a body chart and the nature and intensity of symptoms, nocturnal symptoms, as well as aggravating activities were also recorded. Clinically confirmed CTS cases were screened based on the history, Phalen’s test, Tinel Sign and skin sensation testing among symptomatic respondents. Logistic regression was employed to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the occurrence of self-reported wrist and hand symptoms and clinically confirmed CTS. Results The clinically confirmed CTS prevalence was 9.6%. The prevalence of wrist and hand symptoms were 22 and 15%, respectively. Frequently working in pain was associated with higher odds of CTS. Multivariate modelling adjusted for age and gender showed that prolonged computer use time and working without breaks were associated with presence of wrist/hand symptoms (adjusted ORs: 1.11 (95% CI 1.02–1.22) and 1.88 (95% CI 1.12–3.14)). Educational level was inversely associated with CTS and smoking was associated with wrist/hand complaints (adjusted OR: 2.20 (95% CI 1.19–4.07)). Conclusions The prevalence of work-related clinically confirmed CTS symptoms among young office workers in China is high. Frequently working in pain is closely associated with clinically confirmed CTS. Intense computer use and no breaks at work are associated with wrist and hand symptoms.

No abstract

Stretching is commonly recommended before and after exercise; however, this study showed no significant impact of DS or SS in treating DOMS.

Background: Central sensitization (CS) is frequently reported in chronic pain, and the central sensitization inventory (CSI) is popularly used to assess CS. However, a validated Chinese CSI is lacking and its predictive ability for the comorbidity of central sensitivity syndromes (CSSs) remains unclear. Hence, this study aimed to generate the Chinese CSI (CSI-C) with cultural adaptation and examine its psychometric properties. Methods: The CSI-C was formulated through forward and backward translation, panel review and piloting and then validated among patients with chronic pain (n = 235). Its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity were measured. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed for the construct validity. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed to determine the discriminative ability in the presence of comorbidity of CSSs. Results: About 70% of the participants in the study experienced at least mild CS symptoms. CSI-C demonstrates a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.896) and excellent test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.932). CSI-C scoring was significantly correlated with pain intensity (r = 0.188), EQ-5D index (r = −0.375), anxiety (r=0.525), and depression (r = 0.467). The EFA generated a 5-factor model, including physical symptoms, emotional distress, hypersensitivity syndromes and so on. An CSI cutoff of 42 had a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 70% for identifying chronic pain patients with ≥2 CSSs. Conclusion:The CS manifestations are prevalent in those with persistent pain. CSI-C is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring CS. A CSI score ≥42 may predict the comorbidity of 2 or above CSSs in patients with chronic pain.

No abstract

Background and objective Mindfulness‐based interventions (MBIs) have been recently applied in pain management and cancer care. However, inconsistencies exist concerning the effectiveness of MBIs on pain control among cancer patients. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the efficacy of MBIs on pain in cancer patients via a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods Databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched using key terms related to pain, cancer and mindfulness. The primary outcome was pain intensity. Standardized mean difference (SMD) of each outcome with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE assessment. Results Ten RCTs with 843 participants were included. Significant pooled effects of MBIs on pain intensity were found at both short‐term (SMD = −0.19, 95% CI [−0.33 to −0.04]) and long‐term (SMD = −0.20, 95% CI [−0.35 to −0.05]) follow‐up, whereas no significance was observed for pain interference. In subgroup analyses, significant intervention effects were only seen in clinic‐based MBIs compared to remote MBIs, and pooled effects of MBIs in attenuating pain were discovered relative to passive rather than active comparators. GRADE ratings showed moderate certainty of evidence in MBIs for pain intensity but low for pain interference. Conclusions The efficacy of MBIs in reducing pain intensity among cancer patients was revealed in this meta‐analysis, albeit with a small effect size. Future research is warranted to optimize mindfulness treatment for pain control in cancer patients with high methodological quality and a large sample size. Significance The effect of MBIs on pain in cancer patients was demonstrated in our analysis, albeit with small effect sizes. High‐quality RCTs are needed to verify the efficacy of MBIs on cancer patients or survivors with pain complaints. Future trials should take into account the specific pain outcome measures (pain intensity or pain interference), the approach of intervention provision (clinic‐based or remote MBI, group or individual practice), the duration and frequency of interventions and the comparators (passive or active control arms).