Literature DB >> 18953559

Metrics of whole-body vibration and exposure-response relationship for low back pain in professional drivers: a prospective cohort study.

Massimo Bovenzi1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the relation between alternative measures of exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) and low back pain (LBP) in professional drivers.
METHODS: The incidence of 12-month LBP, high pain intensity (numerical rating scale score > 5), and disability in the lower back (Roland and Morris disability scale score >or=12) was investigated in a cohort of 537 drivers over a 2-year follow-up period. LBP outcomes, individual characteristics, and work-related risk factors were investigated by direct interview using a structured questionnaire. Daily vibration exposure was expressed in terms of either equivalent acceleration over an 8-h reference period [A(8), root-mean-square (r.m.s.) method] or vibration dose value [VDV, root-mean-quad (r.m.q.) method]. From the vibration magnitudes measured on vehicles and total exposure duration, seven alternative measures of cumulative vibration exposure were calculated for each driver, using expressions of the form Sigma a (i)(m)t(i), where a (i) is the frequency-weighted r.m.s. or r.m.q. acceleration magnitude on vehicle i(a(ws) or a (wq), respectively), t(i) is the lifetime exposure duration for vehicle i, and m = 0, 1, 2, or 4.
RESULTS: In the drivers' cohort, the cumulative incidence of LBP outcomes were 36.3% for 12-month LBP, 24.6% for high pain intensity, and 19.2% for disability in the lower back. A transition model, which takes into account the temporal sequence of cause and effect and captures the longitudinal part of the relationship, showed that VDV performed better than A(8) for the prediction of LBP outcomes. After adjusting for potential confounders, test for trends suggested an increased risk for developing high pain intensity and disability over time (and, to a lesser extent, 12-month LBP) with the increases of cumulative vibration doses computed from lifetime exposure duration and r.m.q. vibration magnitude (i.e. Sigma[a (wqi)(m)t(i)]). Measures of exposure duration, either daily or lifetime, also provided good indications of risk for LBP outcomes over time. Physical work load, but not psychosocial environment, was significantly associated with the occurrence of LBP outcomes over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Measures of vibration exposure derived from exposure duration (daily or lifetime) and r.m.q. acceleration magnitude (VDV, Sigma[a(wqi)(m)t(i)]) were better predictors of LBP outcomes over time than measures of vibration exposure including r.m.s. acceleration (A(8), summation operator[a(wsi)(m)t(i)]). Patterns of exposure-response relationship were more evident for the outcomes high pain intensity or disability in the lower back than for the binary response 12-month LBP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18953559     DOI: 10.1007/s00420-008-0376-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health        ISSN: 0340-0131            Impact factor:   3.015


  28 in total

1.  Validation of a questionnaire for assessing physical work load.

Authors:  S Hollmann; F Klimmer; K H Schmidt; H Kylian
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 5.024

Review 2.  Assessing global pain severity by self-report in clinical and health services research.

Authors:  M Von Korff; M P Jensen; P Karoly
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-12-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  An updated review of epidemiologic studies on the relationship between exposure to whole-body vibration and low back pain (1986-1997).

Authors:  M Bovenzi; C T Hulshof
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Validity of a self-completed questionnaire measuring the physical demands of work.

Authors:  D P Pope; A J Silman; N M Cherry; C Pritchard; G J Macfarlane
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.024

Review 5.  Positive and negative evidence of risk factors for back disorders.

Authors:  A Burdorf; G Sorock
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 5.024

6.  Effect of fork-lift truck driving on low-back trouble.

Authors:  T Brendstrup; F Biering-Sørensen
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 5.024

Review 7.  The biomechanics of vibration and low back pain.

Authors:  D G Wilder
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 2.214

8.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Questionnaire versus direct technical measurements in assessing postures and movements of the head, upper back, arms and hands.

Authors:  G A Hansson; I Balogh; J U Byström; K Ohlsson; C Nordander; P Asterland; S Sjölander; L Rylander; J Winkel; S Skerfving
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.024

10.  Validity of self reported occupational exposures to hand transmitted and whole body vibration.

Authors:  K T Palmer; B Haward; M J Griffin; H Bendall; D Coggon
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 4.402

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Physical activity and low back pain: a systematic review of recent literature.

Authors:  Hans Heneweer; Filip Staes; Geert Aufdemkampe; Machiel van Rijn; Luc Vanhees
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-01-09       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Whole-body vibration and the risk of low back pain and sciatica: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lage Burström; Tohr Nilsson; Jens Wahlström
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 3.015

Review 3.  Health effects associated with occupational exposure to hand-arm or whole body vibration.

Authors:  Kristine Krajnak
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2018-12-25       Impact factor: 6.393

Review 4.  Musculoskeletal Disorders Associated with Occupational Driving: A Systematic Review Spanning 2006-2021.

Authors:  Olivia Pickard; Peta Burton; Hayato Yamada; Ben Schram; Elisa F D Canetti; Robin Orr
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 4.614

5.  Relationships of low back outcomes to internal spinal load: a prospective cohort study of professional drivers.

Authors:  Massimo Bovenzi; Marianne Schust; Gerhard Menzel; Andrea Prodi; Marcella Mauro
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2014-09-14       Impact factor: 3.015

6.  Statistical performance of observational work sampling for assessment of categorical exposure variables: a simulation approach illustrated using PATH data.

Authors:  Svend Erik Mathiassen; Jennie A Jackson; Laura Punnett
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2013-12-18

7.  A prospective cohort study of low-back outcomes and alternative measures of cumulative external and internal vibration load on the lumbar spine of professional drivers.

Authors:  Massimo Bovenzi; Marianne Schust
Journal:  Scand J Work Environ Health       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 5.024

8.  Potential regenerative rehabilitation technology: implications of mechanical stimuli to tissue health.

Authors:  Colleen L McHenry; Jason Wu; Richard K Shields
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2014-06-03

9.  Prevalence of musculoskeletal pain among professional drivers: A systematic review.

Authors:  Leonard Joseph; Miles Standen; Aatit Paungmali; Raija Kuisma; Patraporn Sitilertpisan; Ubon Pirunsan
Journal:  J Occup Health       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.708

10.  Assessing physical workload among people with musculoskeletal disorders: validity and reliability of the physical workload questionnaire.

Authors:  Lise Grethe Kjønø; Rikke Munk Killingmo; Ørjan Nesse Vigdal; Margreth Grotle; Kjersti Storheim
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 2.362

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.