Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physical conditioning programs for improving work outcomes in workers with back pain

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001822.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 20 January 2010see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Back and Neck Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Frederieke Schaafsma

    Correspondence to: Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, Australia

    [email protected]

  • Eva Schonstein

    Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, Australia

  • Karyn M Whelan

    Discipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Lidcombe, Australia

  • Eirik Ulvestad

    Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, Australia

  • Dianna Theadora Kenny

    Behavioural and Social Sciences in Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, Australia

  • Jos H Verbeek

    Occupational Safety and Health Review Group, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Kuopio, Finland

Contributions of authors

Frederieke Schaafsma updated the searches for new trials. Frederieke Schaafsma, Karyn Whelan and Eirik Ulvestadt conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and analysis of all new studies. Eva Schonstein, supported by Dianna Kenny, conducted the study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and analysis of all studies included in the original review. Frederieke Schaafsma, Eva Schonstein and Jos Verbeek were involved in developing the updated protocol and the review. All review authors commented on the draft of the final manuscript.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • The University of Sydney, Australia.

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

Declarations of interest

None

Acknowledgements

Jennifer Keating, Bart Koes and Robert Herbert who were co‐authors and contributed to the original review; Andrew Leaver who did the first attempt to update this review in 2005 and gave enormous input on what needed to be done for this update; Heather Widdrington and Rachel Couban from the Cochrane Back Review Group who updated and refined the literature searches.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2013 Aug 30

Physical conditioning as part of a return to work strategy to reduce sickness absence for workers with back pain

Review

Frederieke G Schaafsma, Karyn Whelan, Allard J van der Beek, Ludeke C van der Es‐Lambeek, Anneli Ojajärvi, Jos H Verbeek

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001822.pub3

2010 Jan 20

Physical conditioning programs for improving work outcomes in workers with back pain

Review

Frederieke Schaafsma, Eva Schonstein, Karyn M Whelan, Eirik Ulvestad, Dianna Theadora Kenny, Jos H Verbeek

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001822.pub2

2003 Jul 21

Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back and neck pain

Review

Eva Schonstein, Dianna Theodora Kenny, Jennifer L Keating, Bart W Koes

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001822

Differences between protocol and review

This is an update of the original review published in 2003. Because the update also included amendments to the original method section, a new protocol was written.

In the protocol, we stated that we would re‐calculate the SMDs into a mean difference in time to return‐to‐work. This would be done from the pooled effect‐size using the median standard‐deviation of the included studies in the formula: pooled mean difference = pooled effect size * median standard deviation.

However, we preferred not to re‐calculate the SMDs back and instead use the clinically worthwhile cut off points from the original review.

Another difference is the change of title in this updated version. The original title was: "Work conditioning, work hardening and functional restoration for workers with back an neck pain".

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.