Criteria for the classification of carpal tunnel syndrome for use in epidemiologic studies were developed by means of a consensus process. Twelve medical researchers with experience in conducting epidemiologic studies of carpal tunnel syndrome participated in the process. The group reached agreement on several conceptual issues. First, there is no perfect gold standard for carpal tunnel syndrome. The combination of electrodiagnostic study findings and symptom characteristics will provide the most accurate information for classification of carpal tunnel syndrome. Second, use of only electrodiagnostic study findings is not recommended. Finally, in the absence of electrodiagnostic studies, specific combinations of symptom characteristics and physical examination findings may be useful in some settings but are likely to result in greater misclassification of disease status.

Objectives Most studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence and prevalence among workers have been limited by small sample sizes or restricted to a small subset of jobs. We established a common CTS case definition and then pooled CTS prevalence and incidence data across six prospective studies of musculoskeletal outcomes to measure CTS frequency and allow better studies of etiology. Methods Six research groups collected prospective data at >50 workplaces including symptoms characteristic of CTS and electrodiagnostic studies (EDS) of the median and ulnar nerves across the dominant wrist. While study designs and the timing of data collection varied across groups, we were able to create a common CTS case definition incorporating both symptoms and EDS results from data that were collected in all studies. Results At the time of enrollment, 7.8% of 4321 subjects met our case definition and were considered prevalent cases of CTS. During 8833 person-years of follow-up, an additional 204 subjects met the CTS case definition for an overall incidence rate of 2.3 CTS cases per 100 person-years. Conclusions Both prevalent and incident CTS were common in data pooled across multiple studies and sites. The large number of incident cases in this prospective study provides adequate power for future exposure– response analyses to identify work- and non-work-related risk factors for CTS. The prospective nature allows determination of the temporal relations necessary for causal inference.

No abstract

The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial. There is little consensus on the most appropriate interventions for MSDs. Our objective was to update a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for preventing and managing upper extremity MSD (UEMSD). We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis. 6 electronic databases were searched (January 2008 until April 2013 inclusive) yielding 9909 non-duplicate references. 26 high-quality and medium-quality studies relevant to our research question were combined with 35 from the original review to synthesise the evidence on 30 different intervention categories. There was strong evidence for one intervention category, resistance training, leading to the recommendation: Implementing a workplace-based resistance training exercise programme can help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms. The synthesis also revealed moderate evidence for stretching programmes, mouse use feedback and forearm supports in preventing UEMSD or symptoms. There was also moderate evidence for no benefit for EMG biofeedback, job stress management training, and office workstation adjustment for UEMSD and symptoms. Messages are proposed for both these and other intervention categories.

Work-related upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders,

Video display terminal (VDT) operators (n = 150) in the editorial department of a large metropolitan newspaper participated in a study of day-to-day musculoskeletal symptoms. Work posture related to the VDT workstation and psychosocial work factors were also investigated for their contributions to the severity of upper body pain, numbness, and stiffness using a representative subsample (n = 70). Self-report measures included Karasek's Job Content Instrument and the author-designed Work Interpersonal Relationships Inventory. Independent observations of work posture were performed using techniques similar to those reported by Sauter et al. [1991]. Pain during the last week was reported by 59% (n = 88) of the respondents, and 28% (n = 42) were categorized by symptom criteria potentially to have musculoskeletal disorders. More hours per day of VDT use and less decision latitude on the job were significant risk factors for potential musculoskeletal CTDs. Head rotation and relative keyboard height were significantly related to more severe pain and stiffness in the shoulders, neck, and upper back. Lower levels of co-worker support were associated with more severe hand and arm numbness. For both the region of the shoulders, neck, and upper back and the hand and arm region, however, the contributions of relative keyboard and seat back heights to symptom severity were modified by psychological workload, decision latitude, and employee relationship with the supervisor. Alternative explanations for these findings are discussed.

Background Between 2001 and 2010, five research groups conducted coordinated prospective studies of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) incidence among US workers from various industries and collected detailed subject-level exposure information with follow-up of symptoms, electrophysiological measures and job changes. Objective This analysis examined the associations between workplace biomechanical factors and incidence of dominant-hand CTS, adjusting for personal risk factors. Methods 2474 participants, without CTS or possible polyneuropathy at enrolment, were followed up to 6.5 years (5102 person-years). Individual workplace exposure measures of the dominant hand were collected for each task and included force, repetition, duty cycle and posture. Task exposures were combined across the workweek using time-weighted averaging to estimate job-level exposures. CTS case-criteria were based on symptoms and results of electrophysiological testing. HRs were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models. Results After adjustment for covariates, analyst (HR=2.17; 95% CI 1.38 to 3.43) and worker (HR=2.08; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.39) estimated peak hand force, forceful repetition rate (HR=1.84; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.86) and per cent time spent (eg, duty cycle) in forceful hand exertions (HR=2.05; 95% CI 1.34 to 3.15) were associated with increased risk of incident CTS. Associations were not observed between total hand repetition rate, per cent duration of all hand exertions, or wrist posture and incident CTS. Conclusions In this prospective multicentre study of production and service workers, measures of exposure to forceful hand exertion were associated with incident CTS after controlling for important covariates. These findings may influence the design of workplace safety programmes for preventing work-related CTS.

Background: Call centre work with computers is associated with increased rates of upper body pain and musculoskeletal disorders. Methods: This one year, randomised controlled intervention trial evaluated the effects of a wide forearm support surface and a trackball on upper body pain severity and incident musculoskeletal disorders among 182 call centre operators at a large healthcare company. Participants were randomised to receive (1) ergonomics training only, (2) training plus a trackball, (3) training plus a forearm support, or (4) training plus a trackball and forearm support. Outcome measures were weekly pain severity scores and diagnosis of incident musculoskeletal disorder in the upper extremities or the neck/shoulder region based on physical examination performed by a physician blinded to intervention. Analyses using Cox proportional hazard models and linear regression models adjusted for demographic factors, baseline pain levels, and psychosocial job factors. Results: Post-intervention, 63 participants were diagnosed with one or more incident musculoskeletal disorders. Hazard rate ratios showed a protective effect of the armboard for neck/shoulder disorders (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.97) after adjusting for baseline pain levels and demographic and psychosocial factors. The armboard also significantly reduced neck/shoulder pain (p = 0.01) and right upper extremity pain (p = 0.002) in comparison to the control group. A return-on-investment model predicted a full return of armboard and installation costs within 10.6 months. Conclusion: Providing a large forearm support combined with ergonomic training is an effective intervention to prevent upper body musculoskeletal disorders and reduce upper body pain associated with computer work among call centre employees.