Comparison of four peak spinal loading exposure measurement methods and their association with low-back pain

Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 404-409

  Neumann, W Patrick ^a   Wells, Richard P ^a,b   Norman, Robert W ^a   Andrews, David M ^c   Frank, John ^b,d   Shannon, Harry S ^b,c   Kerr, Mickey S ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b INSTITUTE FOR WORK AND HEALTH   (Canada)

^c MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biomechanical load; Epidemiology; Exposure measurement; Low back pain

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR SPINE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF REPORT;

EID: 0032729495     PISSN: 03553140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.452     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Norman R, Wells R, Neumann P, Frank J, Shannon H., Kerr, M. A comparison of peak vs cumulative physical work exposure risk factors for the reporting of low back pain in the automotive industry. J Clin Biomech 1998;13:561-73.
2. Marras WS, Lavender SA, Leurgans SE, Rajulu SL, Allread WG, Fathallah MS, et al. The role of dynamic three-dimensional trunk motion in occupationally-related low back disorders - the effects of workplace factors, trunk position, and trunk motion characteristics on risk of injury. Spine 1993;18(5):617-28.
3. Punnett L, Fine LJ, Keyserling WM, Herrin GD, Chaffin DB. Back disorders and nonneutral trunk postures of automobile assembly workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 1991;17:337-46.
4. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors - a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. Baltimore (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, 1997. Document 97-141.
5. Wells R, Norman R, Neumann P, Andrews D, Frank J, Shannon H, Kerr M. Assessment of physical work load in epidemiologic studies: common measurement metrics for exposure assessment. Ergonomics 1997;40(1):51-61.
6. Kerr S, Shannon HS, Frank JW, Norman RWK, Wells RP, Neumann, P. The relative importance of biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors in a case-control study of low-back pain. In: Seppälä P, Luopajärvi T, Nygård C-H, Mattila M, editors. Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association's 13th Triennial Congress 1997, Tampere, Finland. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 1997:64-5.
7. Andrews DM, Norman RW, Wells RP, Neumann P. The Accuracy of self-report and trained observer methods for obtaining estimates of peak load information during industrial work. Int J Ind Ergon 1997;19:445-55.
8. Government of Canada. Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness (CSTF) operations manual. 3rd edition. Ottawa (Ontario): Government of Canada - Fitness and Amateur Sport, 1986.
9. Edmondstone MA, Neumann P, Wells R, Norman R. Interobserver reliability in work sampling: a measurement system for back posture and spinal loading. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the Human Factors Association of Canada. Mississauga (Ontario): Human Factors Association of Canada, 1996:79-84.
10. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86(2):420-8.
11. Bigos SJ, Baltic MC, Spengler DM, Fisher LD, Fordyce WE, Hansson T, et al. A longitudinal, prospective study of industrial back injury reporting. Clin Orthop 1992;279:21-33.
12. Andrews DM, Norman RW, Wells RP. Accuracy and repeatability of low back spine compression force estimates from self-reports of body posture during load handling. Int J Ind Ergon 1996;18:251-60.
13. Kerr MS. A case-control study of biomechanical and psychosocial risk factors for low-back pain reported in an occupational setting [dissertation]. Toronto (ON): University of Toronto, 1997.