Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Vocational rehabilitation for enhancing return-to-work in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries

  1. Wen-Hsuan Hou1,2,
  2. Ching-Chi Chi3,4,*,
  3. Heng-Lien Daniel Lo5,
  4. Ken N Kuo6,
  5. Hung-Yi Chuang7

Editorial Group: Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Group

Published Online: 13 OCT 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 5 MAY 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010002.pub2


How to Cite

Hou WH, Chi CC, Lo HLD, Kuo KN, Chuang HY. Vocational rehabilitation for enhancing return-to-work in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD010002. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010002.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Taipei Medical University, School of Gerontology Health Management, College of Nursing, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, Taipei, Taiwan

  2. 2

    Taipei Medical University Hospital, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taipei, Taiwan

  3. 3

    Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Department of Dermatology and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Chiayi, Taiwan

  4. 4

    Chang Gung University, College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan

  5. 5

    Taipei Medical University, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan

  6. 6

    College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan

  7. 7

    Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital and Kaohsiung Medical University, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan

*Ching-Chi Chi, chingchi@cgmh.org.tw. chingchichi@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 13 OCT 2013

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Description of the condition

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines injury as "a bodily lesion at the organic level, resulting from acute exposure to energy in the work environment (mechanical, thermal, electrical, chemical or radiant) in amounts that exceed the threshold of physiological tolerance. In some cases (e.g. drowning, strangulation, freezing), the injury results from an insufficiency of a vital element" (Baker 1984). Among the various injuries, traumatic upper limb injuries frequently occur in mechanised industry when people interact with machines, at home, during transportation, and in recreation and sports activities (King 1992). Due to the complex physical arrangement, traumatic upper limb injuries often involve varying degrees of damage to, or even loss of, tissue such as the skin, tendons, nerves, blood vessels, bones, or the whole upper limb. Due to the multiple systems affected (that is musculoskeletal, vascular, nervous, or tendinous) in traumatic upper limb injuries, the resultant impairment is often devastating (Cooper 2007). Therefore, a comprehensive return-to-work (RTW) rehabilitation programme following traumatic upper limb injuries aims to enable resumption of participation in work and leisure activities (Blackmore 1992).

In Taiwan, traumatic upper limb injuries are the most frequent type of occupational injury and the major cause of functional impairment and work-related disability (accounting for 45% of 14,261 occupational injuries and 55.8% of occupational permanent disability benefits in 2010) (CLA 2011). In the UK, upper limb injuries were the most frequent type (47.3%) of non-fatal injury to employees in 2010 to 2011 (HSE 2012). In Australia, during the period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2004, there were 16,712 cases (32%) of work-related hand and wrist injuries resulting in hospitalisation. In Victoria alone, 12,491 (32.7%) of emergency department presentations were work-related hand and wrist injuries over the two-year period (ASCC 2008). The incidence of upper extremity injury in the US was slightly lower. In 2010, about 25.1 % of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses with days away from work per 10,000 full-time workers were related to upper limb injuries (BLS 2010). Undoubtedly traumatic upper limb injuries cause considerable losses in working days and productivity (Ebel 2004). However, survivors of severe injuries can achieve a quality of life (QoL) comparable with the normal population after returning to their previous jobs (Post 2006). On the other hand the permanent dysfunction of limb injured workers not only limits their daily activities but also directly affects their outcomes in their RTW. For a worker with traumatic upper limb injuries, RTW plays an important role in economic productivity and regaining meaningfulness in life. Therefore, the goals of rehabilitation for patients with traumatic upper limb injuries should be functional independence and RTW.

 

Description of the intervention

A person's ability to work can be profoundly affected by their disease, disability, and a range of contextual factors. Rehabilitation medicine is integral to the process leading to going back to working life after illness or injury, but other rehabilitation disciplines are also essential. It is important to clarify what rehabilitation physicians or trainees in rehabilitation medicine need to know about vocational rehabilitation (VR).

VR is a process whereby those disadvantaged by illness or disability can be enabled to access, maintain, or return to employment. This applies to those with temporary and permanent impairments. Miscellaneous VR programmes are involved, in parallel, during the process of returning to the labour market after an injury. In this review, VR is defined as changes or interventions with the aim of facilitating a worker's employment after injury. These may include one or more of the following: education, follow-up by a case manager, occupational therapy, worksite visits, on-site management, vocational guidance, occupational health services, work hardening, work modification, job accommodation, work adjustments, work reintegration plans, or ergonomic interventions. VR deals mainly with rehabilitation on the basis of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-level of 'participation' (WHO 2001).

Workers who have not returned to work within two to three months after injury are at high risk of disability and dropping out of the work arena completely (Frank 1996). Therefore, encouraging early RTW by intervening at the workplace may be an efficient way to minimise socioeconomic and personal consequences (Elders 2004).

 

How the intervention might work

VR targets promoting employment opportunities for the disabled. When a defect due to trauma affects functional capacity for work or employment, the need for VR should be considered (Gobelet 2006). There are various factors influencing RTW. The chance of RTW is higher among patients who have more positive factors such as younger age, male gender, higher education, white collar work, less injury severity, less disability, more self-efficacy, and better psychological or QoL condition (Chamberlain 2009). Factors may be personal or medical, and some are external influences, that is where the context is outside the individual such as activity, participation, and environmental factors in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which are categorised in the ICF Environmental factors (WHO 2001).

Although the interventions of VR vary, their purpose is in general "to maximise the ability of an individual to return to meaningful employment" (BSRM 2000). In other words, the best rehabilitation practice in RTW enhances work and activity tolerance, prevents illness behaviour, and reduces pain and the effects of illness or disability (Gobelet 2006). Therefore, VR helps the injured people in mitigating work disability, accelerating return to meaningful employment, minimising workdays lost, increasing the productivity of injured workers, reducing premature retirement, and containing the welfare cost (Disler 2001).

Alhough the Association of British Insurers has suggested that functional and vocational rehabilitation for severe injuries should be administered after a medical plateau is reached (that is when the worker's medical condition has stabilised and further significant medical improvement is unlikely) (ABI & TUC 2002), early intervention (after sufficient time for healing of injured structures) and the patient's active involvement have been shown to decrease deconditioning (that is due to immobility, the decrease of physiological adaptation to normal conditions) and illness behaviour and foster higher RTW rates (ABI & TUC 2002). Early VR programmes are likely to increase both job and physical well-being and to decrease the need for a disability pension and sick leave. According to a review on the general effects of rehabilitation on unspecified disability by Kuoppala 2008, VR and multimodal medical treatment combined with VR increase the RTW risk ratio (RR) to 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 2.00) and RR 1.5 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.41), respectively. Moreover, VR delivered to people at risk of job loss (but still employed) can delay job loss (Allaire 2003). In this respect, VR can improve patients' QoL and well-being as well as reduce loss of workforce.

 

Why it is important to do this review

Several VR programmes have been used for traumatic upper limb injuries without a critical appraisal of their benefits. Traditional rehabilitation has emphasised training to improve strength, endurance, sensory function, and range of motion. However, recent reviews have shown that various novel VR programmes are effective in enhancing RTW in workers with various diseases or conditions (Aas 2011; Arends 2012; de Boer 2011; Khan 2009; Schaafsma 2010; van Oostrom 2009). Yet only a few systematic reviews have examined the effectiveness of VR in enhancing early RTW. According to the systematic review by Franche 2005, there is moderate to strong evidence that five kinds of VR, including early contact by the workplace, work accommodation, contact between healthcare provider and workplace, an ergonomic worksite intervention, or the use of a RTW co-ordinator, can shorten the duration of work disability (Franche 2005). The van Oostrom 2009 review on the other hand focused on people with low back pain, recurrent musculoskeletal disorders, job stress, or chronic work-related upper extremities disorders. Other published Cochrane reviews have assessed the effectiveness of measures to improve RTW in a range of patient populations including those with brain injuries (Nair 2008), back pain (Schaafsma 2010), neck pain (Aas 2011), multiple sclerosis (Khan 2009), and cancer (de Boer 2011), which are all different from our target population of people with traumatic upper limb injuries. To date, no-one has used Cochrane methods to assess the effectiveness of VR interventions to enhance RTW for workers with traumatic upper limb injuries.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

To assess the effects of VR in enhancing RTW of workers with traumatic upper limb injuries.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

We planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared VR with an alternative (control) intervention such as standard rehabilitation or an incomplete form of VR intervention (such as with limited advice on RTW, referral information, or liaison with employer), or wait-list controls.

 

Types of participants

We planned to include trials where participants were working age adults (18 to 65 years) who had been in paid employment (employee or self-employed) at the time of sustaining an acute episode of traumatic upper limb injury involving any parts of the fingers, hand, wrist, forearm, elbow, or arm, regardless of injury type and mechanism. We excluded trials where participants suffered from a subacute or chronic upper limb injury for over three months.

When a study included workers with various kinds of injuries, we planned to include it if 50% or more of the participants had sustained upper limb injuries and the study authors reported separate analyses for participants with upper limb injuries.

We excluded studies where participants had cumulative trauma disorders or repetitive strain injuries such as tendonitis or tendosynovitis, epicondylitis, carpal tunnel syndrome, or the like. We also excluded studies where participants had coexisting injuries to the central nervous system (that is brain or spinal cord), or to internal organs.

 

Types of interventions

We planned to include any type of intervention with the aim of enhancing RTW. Interventions may have been carried out either with an individual or in a group, and in a clinical setting or in the community. Interventions could primarily focus on different factors which influence RTW, for example on coping (in psychological interventions), workplace adjustments (in vocational interventions), or physical exercises (in physical interventions). Interventions were divided into the following.

  • Psychological: any type of psychological intervention such as counselling, education, training in coping skills, cognitive-behavioural interventions, and problem solving therapy (PST) undertaken by any qualified professional (such as a psychologist, social worker, or nurse).
  • Vocational: any type of intervention focused on employment. Vocational interventions may be person-directed or work-directed. Person-directed vocational interventions are aimed at the patient and incorporate programmes which aim to encourage RTW, vocational rehabilitation, or occupational rehabilitation. Work-directed vocational interventions are aimed at the workplace and include workplace adjustments such as modified work hours, modified work tasks, or modified workplace, and improved communication with or between managers, colleagues, and health professionals.
  • Physical: any type of physical training (such as functional capacity training, work hardening training), physical exercises (such as tendon exercises, nerve gliding exercises), or training of bodily functions (such as muscle strengthening, balance training, endurance training, sensory re-education, range of motion).
  • Multifaceted: a combination of psychological, vocational, and physical interventions.

Where there were multiple intervention groups within a trial, we planned to conduct pairwise comparisons of an intervention versus no intervention, placebo, or another intervention.

 

Types of outcome measures

 

Primary outcomes

RTW included return to either full- or part-time employment, to the same or a reduced role, and to either the previous job or any new employment (Clay 2010). We planned to perform separate subgroup analyses of: return to the previous role (either under the same or a new employer), return to a reduced role (either under the same or a new employer), change from full-time to part-time employment, and change to a reduced pay employment. We planned to consider two types of RTW data:

• RTW measured as event data, such as RTW rates, or as (change in) disability pension rates (Arnetz 2003; Loisel 2003);

• RTW measured as time-to-event data, such as number of days between reporting sick and any work resumption, or the number of days on sick leave during the follow-up period (Ebel 2004; MacKenzie 1998; MacKenzie 2006).

 

Secondary outcomes

• Functional status: measures related to job demands or activities of daily living that are expressed in terms of 'can perform the task' or 'cannot perform the task' (Burke 1994; Pransky 2005; Soberg 2010).

• Quality of life (QoL), measures including overall QoL, physical QoL, emotional QoL, and pain (Bültmann 2007; Post 2006).

 

Search methods for identification of studies

 

Electronic searches

We searched the following electronic databases, from inception:

1. CISDOC, HSELINE, International Bibliographic, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, RILOSH (OSH update, searched on 10 December 2012);

2. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11) (November);

3. MEDLINE through PubMed (1946 to 15 November 2012);

4. EMBASE (1947 to 28 November 2012);

5. CINAHL (1937 to 5 May 2013);

6. PsycINFO (searched on 7 December 2012).

We have presented the search strategies for OSH update, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in Appendix 1, Appendix 2, Appendix 3, Appendix 4, Appendix 5, and Appendix 6, respectively.

 

Searching other resources

In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing studies, we:

  1. scanned the reference lists of relevant review articles and planned to scan the reference lists of included studies;
  2. contacted experts in the field of occupational health and safety;
  3. planned to write to the authors of included studies to obtain additional references, unpublished trials, and ongoing trials, or to obtain missing data not reported in the original publication. 

We had no limitations on language, publication status, or date of publication.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Two authors (WHH and CCC) independently selected suitable studies for inclusion in this review by screening the titles and abstracts of studies identified from the electronic databases. If the title and abstract provided sufficient information to determine that the inclusion criteria were not met, we excluded the study. We further checked the full text of the study if the study could not be excluded with certainty. When the two authors disagreed about the inclusion of a study, we resolved disagreements by discussion. A third author (HLL) arbitrated when necessary. We listed the studies that could only be excluded after reading the full text and have provided the reasons for exclusion in the 'Characteristics of excluded studies' table.

 

Data extraction and management

We planned to extract and summarise details of included studies using a standardised data extraction form. Where studies had been published more than once, we planned to extract data from all reports and consider the one with the greatest amount of data as the primary reference. Two authors (WHH and CCC) planned to independently extract the following data:

  • author, title, source of reference, country, and publication year;
  • number and description of participants;
  • intervention and comparison;
  • concomitant interventions;
  • who delivered the intervention;
  • primary and secondary outcome data and methods of measurement;
  • duration of follow-up.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Two authors (WHH and CCC) planned to independently assess each included study using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). This tool addresses specific domains, namely random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of biases (for example extreme baseline imbalance) (see Appendix 7 for details of the criteria). We planned to assess the blinding and completeness of the outcome data for each outcome separately and generate a 'Risk of bias' table for each included study. When the two authors disagreed about a particular judgment for the risk of bias, we planned to resolve disagreements by discussion and a third author (HLL) would arbitrate if necessary.

We planned to present the assessments of risk of bias in a summary figure to illustrate all of the judgments in a cross-tabulation of studies.

 

Measures of treatment effect

We planned to plot the results of each RCT as point estimates, such as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, means and standard deviations (SDs) for continuous outcomes, or other types of data as reported by the authors of the studies. When the results could not be plotted, we planned to describe them in the 'Characteristics of included studies' table, or enter the data into 'Additional tables'.

We planned to plot time-to-event data as hazard ratios (HRs). If Kaplan-Meier curves were presented, we planned to extract the data from the graphs and calculate HRs according to the methods given in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

 

Unit of analysis issues

All observed participants in the intervention and control groups were the planned primary unit of analysis. For studies that employed a cluster-randomised design but did not make an allowance for the design effect, we planned to calculate the design effect based on a fairly large assumed intra-cluster correlation of 0.10. We based this assumption, by analogy, on studies about implementation research (Campbell 2001). We planned to follow the methods stated in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) for the calculations.

 

Dealing with missing data

We planned to contact study authors to obtain missing data. Where we could not obtain missing data from study authors, we planned to judge the trials with incomplete outcome data according to the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). For example, if statistics were missing, such as SDs, we planned to calculate them from other available statistics such as P values.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We planned to assess clinical homogeneity based on similarity of population, intervention, outcomes, and follow-up. We planned to categorise study participants into jobs with high hand load, such as typing or lifting small objects, and into jobs with low upper limb load, such as in monitoring or receptionist work. Otherwise we planned to consider study populations as similar if the participants had been in paid employment when 50% or more of them had sustained an acute episode of traumatic upper limb injury involving any parts of the fingers, hand, wrist, forearm, elbow, or arm, regardless of injury type and mechanism, and regardless of occupation or type of work. We planned to consider interventions as similar if they fell into one of the predefined categories of interventions (as stated in the paragraph on criteria for including studies). We planned to consider the RTW outcomes and sick leave duration outcomes as similar. We planned to regard follow-up periods of less than three months, three months to one year, and more than one year as different. In addition, we planned to test for statistical heterogeneity by means of the Chi2 test as implemented in the forest plots in the software RevMan 2012. This test examines the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity rather than to chance. We planned to use a significance level of P < 0.10 to indicate whether there was a problem with heterogeneity. Moreover, we planned to quantify the degree of heterogeneity using the I2 statistic, where an I2 value of 25% to 50% indicates a low degree of heterogeneity, 50% to 75% a moderate degree of heterogeneity, and > 75% a high degree of heterogeneity (Higgins 2003).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

We planned to reduce the effects of reporting bias by including studies and not publications to avoid the introduction of duplicate data (that is two articles may represent duplicate publications of the same study). Following the Cho 2000 statement on redundant publications, we attempted to detect duplicate studies and, if more than one article reported on the same study, we planned to extract data only once. We prevented location bias by searching across multiple databases. We prevented language bias by not excluding any article based on language. We planned to assess publication bias with a funnel plot if at least 10 studies were available for the primary outcome and could be included in the funnel plot.

 

Data synthesis

We planned to pool data from studies judged to be clinically homogeneous using RevMan 2012. If sufficient data were available, we planned to perform meta-analyses. When studies were statistically heterogeneous, we planned to use a random-effects model; otherwise we planned to use a fixed-effect model. When using the fixed-effect model, we planned to conduct a sensitivity analysis by using the random-effects model to test if there were differences in the results. We planned to include 95% CIs for all estimates. For the analysis of HRs, we planned to use the inverse variance method in RevMan 2012. For RTW outcomes we planned to deem time to RTW, the rate of RTW, and the number of days on sick leave sufficiently similar to be combined in a meta-analysis. We planned to use effect sizes to combine continuous and dichotomous RTW outcome data. We planned to use the mean number of days off work to calculate the effect size for the days on sick leave with the following formula: mean change difference over standard deviation (Håland 2002). For the HRs and rate ratios, we planned to take their natural logarithms and transform them into effect sizes as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Chinn 2000; Higgins 2011). We planned to use effect sizes and their standard errors as input in the meta-analysis using the generic inverse variance method. After meta-analysis, we planned to re-calculate a mean difference in time-to-RTW from the pooled effect size using the median SD of the included studies in the formula: pooled mean difference = pooled effect size x median SD.

We planned to use the GRADE approach as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011) and implemented in the GRADEPro 3.6 software (GRADEpro) to present the quality of evidence and 'Summary of findings' tables.

The downgrading of the quality of a body of evidence for a specific outcome would be based on five factors:

  1. limitations of study;
  2. indirectness of evidence;
  3. inconsistency of results;
  4. imprecision of results;
  5. publication bias.

The GRADE approach specifies four levels of quality (high, moderate, low, and very low) (van Tulder 2003).

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We planned to perform subgroup analyses according to injury severity or body parts, setting, and quality of the study, because these variables could potentially affect the intervention effect estimates.

 

Sensitivity analysis

We planned to conduct a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of our meta-analysis results by excluding studies judged to have a high risk of bias.

 

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Description of studies

 

Results of the search

We identified a total of 332 records and assessed 15 as full text for eligibility for this review. See Figure 1 for a study flow diagram.

 FigureFigure 1. Study flow diagram.

 

Included studies

None of the studies that we assessed for eligibility met our inclusion criteria.

 

Excluded studies

We considered 15 studies potentially eligible and retrieved their full texts. However, all of them failed to meet the inclusion criteria and therefore we excluded them. We present descriptions of all 15 studies with the reasons why we excluded them in the Characteristics of excluded studies.

 

Risk of bias in included studies

We did not include any randomised controlled trials and so there was no risk of bias to assess.

 

Effects of interventions

We did not include any randomised controlled trials and so we did not conduct any analyses.

 

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Summary of main results

We did not identify any RCTs addressing the efficacy of VR in enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries. Most of the studies identified from the searches evaluated the effects of range of motion exercise and physical training to facilitate early RTW. A number of identified RCTs compared different policies of workplace accommodation, counselling, case management, or worksite visits for workers with chronic musculoskeletal problems of the upper extremities (Cheng 2007; Haahr 2005; Li 2006). There were also clinical trials comparing surgical intervention and medical rehabilitation (that is splinting, mobilising, or strengthening) for upper limb injuries during hospitalisation (Feehan 2004; Lubbert 2008; Unsworth-White 1994). Various VR programs have been developed to help workers who have sustained traumatic upper limb injury to return to the labour market. However, we found no high-level evidence to either support or refute the effects of VR in enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries.

 

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

The absence of randomised trials eligible for inclusion in this review illustrates that the evidence on VR for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries is unclear and incomplete. All of the studies that we retrieved in the searches had assessed the effects of different rehabilitation after immobilisation or enhancing range of motion strategies at acute medical stages, which we had pre-specified as exclusion criteria for this review.

 

Potential biases in the review process

We made every attempt to limit bias in the review process by ensuring a comprehensive search for potentially eligible studies. The authors' independent assessments of eligibility of studies for inclusion in this review minimised the potential for additional bias.

 

Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews

We found a systematic review of early prognostic factors for RTW following orthopaedic trauma (Clay 2010). This review used prospective and retrospective cohort studies and explored prognostic factors either at pre-injury or at the early post-injury phase. Two prospective studies that used survival analysis found that providing modified work (Seland 2006) and strong practical support (MacKenzie 1998) increased the likelihood of RTW, to 1.24 and 1.7 times respectively. However, none of the studies included in the Clay 2010 review assessed the effectiveness of VR intervention for acute orthopaedic injuries.

There are several RCTs focusing on the effects of rehabilitation intervention for adults with distal radial fractures. Their results have been pooled in a Cochrane systematic review by Handoll 2006. The types of rehabilitation interventions examined in these studies are limited to hand therapy or medical rehabilitation and no further VR programs have been arranged for patients with orthopaedic trauma.

 

Authors' conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

 

Implications for practice

Despite a thorough search for evidence relating to the efficacy of VR for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries, we found no relevant randomised trials. This review therefore found no evidence on the effect of VR for enhancing RTW in workers with traumatic upper limb injuries.

 
Implications for research

VR programmes have been proposed to help injured people in mitigating work disability, accelerating return to meaningful employment, minimising workdays lost, increasing productivity, reducing premature retirement, and containing the welfare cost (Disler 2001). The fact that VR has been constantly provided as part of occupational health care despite a lack of high-quality evidence for its effectiveness in this population underlines the necessity for RCTs of this intervention.

Another way to fill the evidence gap is to make better use of RCTs of general rehabilitation measures which should also include RTW outcomes, preferably the number at work at end of follow-up or the time taken to return-to-work. The intervention should be well-described according to the elements that make up vocational rehabilitation. A careful process evaluation should show how well the intervention was implemented. Reporting should conform to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (http://www.consortstatement.org), which will enable appraisal and interpretation of results and accurate judgments to be made about the risk of bias and the overall quality of the evidence.

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

We would like to thank Jos Verbeek, Jani Ruotsalainen, Risto Rautiainen, Wim van Veelen, Anneli Ojajärvi, and Leena Isotalo from the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group for their extensive feedback, and Jani Ruotsalainen, Joey Kwong and Janet Wale for copy editing the text. We also thank Kaisa Neuvonen for her help in developing search strategies and executing searches.

 

Data and analyses

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

This review has no analyses.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Appendix 1. OSH update search strategy and results

Database: OSH update

Date run: 10.12.2012 (KN)

databases within OSH update: CISDOC, HSELINE, International Bibliographic, NIOSHTIC, NIOSHTIC-2, RILOSH


#1735300DC{OUBIB or OUCISD or OUHSEL or OUNIOC or OUNIOS or OURILO}

#21166GW{hand injur*}

#319GW{tendon injur*}

#4310GW{arm injur*}

#5113GW{wrist injur*}

#614GW{(brachium and fractur*) or (brachial and fractur*)}

#75GW{(ulna fracture or (ulna and fractur*))}

#869GW{finger injur*}

#9105GW{(radius fracture or (radius and fractur*))}

#101578#2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9

#11194345GW{occupational medicine or occupational health service or rehabilitation or employment or work or education or educational status}

#122193GW{counseling or counselling}

#13259GW{vocational guidance}

#14663GW{vocational training}

#151156GW{vocational rehabilitation or work rehabilitation or occupational rehabilitation}

#1651GW{workplace intervention}

#174435GW{work* and intervention}

#183GW{workplace adjustment}

#19116GW{work* adjustment}

#208GW{modified duties or modified duty}

#2113GW{case manager}

#220GW{work reintegration*}

#230GW{vocational workplace}

#248341#12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21

#253945GW{absenteeism*}

#262155GW{medical leave or sick leave or sickness leave or sickness absence}

#275393#25 or #26

#28827927GW{return to work}

#290GW{"return to work"}

#30278GW{return-to-work}

#313139GW{return and work}

#322701GW{unemployment}

#3326434GW{employable or employability or employee}

#3431078#30 or #31 or #32 or #33

#35147GW{(disability management) or (disab* management)}

#36423GW{workability or (work* ability)}

#37236GW{work disability}

#38444GW{work activity or (work* activity)}

#3943GW{(work retention) or (work* retention) or (job retention)}

#40116GW{(work status) or (work* status)}

#411378#35 or #36 or #37 or #38 or #39 or #40

#4236136#27 or #34 or #41

#43145#10 and #11 and #42



 

Appendix 2. CENTRAL search strategy and results

Database CENTRAL

Date Run: 12/12/12 (KN)


IDSearchhits

#1MeSH descriptor: [Hand Injuries] explode all trees178

#2"hand injury" or "hands injury" or "hand injur*" or "hands injur*"147

#3MeSH descriptor: [Tendon Injuries] explode all trees353

#4"tendon injury" or "tendon injur*"216

#5MeSH descriptor: [Forearm Injuries] explode all trees233

#6"forearm injury" or "forearm injur*" or "forearms injur*"39

#7MeSH descriptor: [Wrist Injuries] explode all trees102

#8"wrist injuries" or "wrist injury" or "wrist injur*" or "wrists injur*"120

#9MeSH descriptor: [Humeral Fractures] explode all trees59

#10"humeral fracture" or "humeral fractures" or "humeral fractur*" or "humerus fracture" or "humerus fractur*" or "humeri fracture" or "humeri fractur*"139

#11MeSH descriptor: [Shoulder Fractures] explode all trees44

#12"shoulder fractur*" or "brachium fractur*" or "brachial fractur*"51

#13MeSH descriptor: [Radius Fractures] explode all trees253

#14"radius fractur*" or "radii fractur*"311

#15MeSH descriptor: [Ulna Fractures] explode all trees35

#16"ulna fractur*"50

#17MeSH descriptor: [Upper Extremity] explode all trees4921

#18#17 and injur*390

#19"upper extremity injury" or "upper extremity injur*"27

#20MeSH descriptor: [Finger Injuries] explode all trees84

#21"finger injur*" or " digit injur*"99

#22#1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #211530

#23MeSH descriptor: [Occupational Medicine] explode all trees57

#24#23 or "occupational medicine"346

#25MeSH descriptor: [Occupational Health] explode all trees321

#26#25 or "occupational health"1248

#27MeSH descriptor: [Occupational Health Services] explode all trees270

#28#27 or "occupational health service*"456

#29MeSH descriptor: [Rehabilitation] explode all trees12150

#30#29 or "rehabilitation"30286

#31MeSH descriptor: [Employment] explode all trees965

#32#31 or "employment"2626

#33MeSH descriptor: [Work] explode all trees247

#34#33 or "working"7989

#35MeSH descriptor: [Education] explode all trees16645

#36MeSH descriptor: [Educational Status] explode all trees959

#37#35 or #36 or "education"33155

#38#24 or #26 or #28 or #30 or #32 or #34 or #3765899

#39MeSH descriptor: [Rehabilitation, Vocational] explode all trees307

#40MeSH descriptor: [Counseling] explode all trees2656

#41MeSH descriptor: [Vocational Guidance] explode all trees26

#42"work rehabilitation"32

#43"vocational*"850

#44"counseling*" or "counsell*"9081

#45"training*"25094

#46"occupational rehabilitation*"103

#47"workplace intervention*"90

#48"workplace accomodation*"0

#49"workplace adjustment*"10

#50"modified-duty" or "modified-duties" or "modified work*"25

#51"case manager*"341

#52"work reintegration*"6

#53"work-site-visit*" or "work site visit"13

#54"workplace vocational*"1

#55#54 or "vocational workplace*"3

#56#39 or #40 or #41 or #42 or #43 or #44 or #45 or #46 or #47 or #49 or #50 or #51 or #52 or #53 or #5533245

#57MeSH descriptor: [Absenteeism] explode all trees377

#58#57 or "absenteeism*"833

#59MeSH descriptor: [Sick Leave] explode all trees336

#60#59 or "sick leave*" or "sickness leave*" or "sickness absence*"978

#61#58 or #601620

#62"return-to-work" or "return to work"1143

#63MeSH descriptor: [Unemployment] explode all trees56

#64#63 or "unemployment" or "unemployed"517

#65"employability" or "employable" or "employee*"1591

#66#62 or #64 or #653087

#67"disability management"18

#68"work ability" or "work activity"110

#69"work disability" or "work disabilities"136

#70"work status"209

#71"work retention" or "job retention"24

#72"workability"13

#73#67 or #68 or #69 or #70 or #71 or #72448

#74#38 or #5681363

#75#61 or #66 or #734426

#76#22 and #74 and #7558

#77#76 limit to trial13



 

Appendix 3. PubMed search strategy and results

Database: PubMed

Date run: 15.11.2012 (KN)

(("hand injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR hand injury[Text Word] OR hands injury[Text Word] OR hand injur*[Text Word] OR hands injur*[Text Word] OR "tendon injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR tendon injury[Text Word] OR tendon injur*[Text Word] OR "forearm injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR forearm injury[Text Word] OR forearm injur*[Text Word] OR forearms injur*[Text Word] OR "wrist injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR wrist injuries[Text Word] OR wrist injury[Text Word] OR wrist injur*[Text Word] OR wrists injur*[Text Word] OR "humeral fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR humeral fractures[Text Word] OR humeral fracture[Text Word] OR humeral fractur*[Text Word] OR humerus fracture[Text Word] OR humerus fractur*[Text Word] OR humeri fracture[Text Word] OR humeri fractur*[Text Word] OR "shoulder fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR shoulder fractures[Text Word] OR brachium fractur*[Text Word] OR brachial fractur*[Text Word] OR "radius fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR radius fractures[Text Word] OR radius fracture[Text Word] OR radius fractur*[Text Word] OR radii fractur*[Text Word] OR "ulna fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR ulna fractures[Text Word] OR ulna fracture[Text Word] OR ulna fractur*[Text Word] OR "Upper Extremity/injuries"[Mesh] OR upper extremity injury[Text Word] OR upper extremity injur*[Text Word] OR "finger injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR finger injuries[Text Word] OR finger injury[Text Word] OR finger injur*[Text Word] OR digit injury[Text Word] OR digit injur*[Text Word]) AND (("occupational medicine"[MeSH Terms] OR occupational medicine[Text Word] OR "occupational health"[MeSH Terms] OR occupational health[Text Word] OR "occupational health services"[MeSH Terms] OR occupational health services[Text Word] OR "rehabilitation"[Subheading] OR "rehabilitation"[MeSH Terms] OR rehabilitation[Text Word] OR "employment"[MeSH Terms] OR employment[Text Word] OR "work"[MeSH Terms] OR working[Text Word] OR "education"[Subheading] OR "educational status"[MeSH Terms] OR "education"[MeSH Terms] OR education[Text Word]) OR ("Rehabilitation, Vocational"[Mesh] OR "Counseling"[Mesh] OR "Vocational Guidance"[Mesh] OR work rehabilitation[Text Word] OR vocational*[Text Word] OR counseling*[Text Word] OR training*[Text Word] OR occupational rehabilitation*[Text Word] OR workplace intervention*[Text Word] OR workplace accommodation*[Text Word] OR workplace adjustment*[Text Word] OR modified-duty[Text Word] OR modified-duties[Text Word] OR modified work*[Text Word] OR case manager*[Text Word] OR work reintegration*[Text Word] OR work-site-visit*[Text Word] OR workplace vocational*[Text Word])) AND (("absenteeism"[MeSH Terms] OR absenteeism[Text Word] OR absenteeism*[Text Word] OR "sick leave"[MeSH Terms] OR sick leave[Text Word] OR sick leaves[Text Word] OR sickness leave[Text Word] OR Sickness absence[Text Word]) OR (return to work[Text Word] OR return-to-work[Text Word] OR "unemployment"[MeSH Terms] OR unemployment[Text Word] OR unemployed[Text Word] OR employability[Text Word] OR employable[Text Word] OR employee*[Text Word]) OR (disability management[Text Word] OR work ability[Text Word] OR work activity[Text Word] OR work disability[Text Word] OR work status[Text Word] OR work retention[Text Word] OR job retention[Text Word] OR workability[Text Word]))) AND (randomized controlled trial[pt] OR controlled clinical trial[pt] OR randomized[tiab] OR placebo[tiab] OR drug therapy[sh] OR randomly[tiab] OR trial[tiab] OR groups[tiab] NOT (animals[mh] NOT humans[mh]))

Search history


SearchQueryItems found

#11Search #10 AND #745

#10Search #1 AND #8 AND #9258

#9Search #4 OR #5 OR #674182

#8Search #2 OR #31390446

#7Search (randomized controlled trial[pt] OR controlled clinical trial[pt] OR randomized[tiab] OR placebo[tiab] OR drug therapy[sh] OR randomly[tiab] OR trial[tiab] OR groups[tiab] NOT (animals [mh] NOT humans [mh]))2629467

#6Search disability management[Text Word] OR work ability[Text Word] OR work activity[Text Word] OR work disability[Text Word] OR work status[Text Word] OR work retention[Text Word] OR job retention[Text Word] OR workability[Text Word]3932

#5Search return to work[Text Word] OR return-to-work[Text Word] OR "unemployment"[MeSH Terms] OR unemployment[Text Word] OR unemployed[Text Word] OR employability[Text Word] OR employable[Text Word] OR employee*[Text Word]61319

#4Search "absenteeism"[MeSH Terms] OR absenteeism[Text Word] OR absenteeism*[Text Word] OR "sick leave"[MeSH Terms] OR sick leave[Text Word] OR sick leaves[Text Word] OR sickness leave[Text Word] OR Sickness absence[Text Word]13142

#3Search "Rehabilitation, Vocational"[Mesh] OR "Counseling"[Mesh] OR "Vocational Guidance"[Mesh] OR work rehabilitation[Text Word] OR vocational*[Text Word] OR counseling*[Text Word] OR training*[Text Word] OR occupational rehabilitation*[Text Word] OR workplace intervention*[Text Word] OR workplace accommodation*[Text Word] OR workplace adjustment*[Text Word] OR modified-duty[Text Word] OR modified-duties[Text Word] OR modified work*[Text Word] OR case manager*[Text Word] OR work reintegration*[Text Word] OR work-site-visit*[Text Word] OR workplace vocational*[Text Word]319628

#2Search "occupational medicine"[MeSH Terms] OR occupational medicine[Text Word] OR "occupational health"[MeSH Terms] OR occupational health[Text Word] OR "occupational health services"[MeSH Terms] OR occupational health services[Text Word] OR "rehabilitation"[Subheading] OR "rehabilitation"[MeSH Terms] OR rehabilitation[Text Word] OR "employment"[MeSH Terms] OR employment[Text Word] OR "work"[MeSH Terms] OR working[Text Word] OR "education"[Subheading] OR "educational status"[MeSH Terms] OR "education"[MeSH Terms] OR education[Text Word]1243699

#1Search "hand injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR hand injury[Text Word] OR hands injury[Text Word] OR hand injur*[Text Word] OR hands injur*[Text Word] OR "tendon injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR tendon injury[Text Word] OR tendon injur*[Text Word] OR "forearm injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR forearm injury[Text Word] OR forearm injur*[Text Word] OR forearms injur*[Text Word] OR "wrist injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR wrist injuries[Text Word] OR wrist injury[Text Word] OR wrist injur*[Text Word] OR wrists injur*[Text Word] OR "humeral fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR humeral fractures[Text Word] OR humeral fracture[Text Word] OR humeral fractur*[Text Word] OR humerus fracture[Text Word] OR humerus fractur*[Text Word] OR humeri fracture[Text Word] OR humeri fractur*[Text Word] OR "shoulder fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR shoulder fractures[Text Word] OR brachium fractur*[Text Word] OR brachial fractur*[Text Word] OR "radius fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR radius fractures[Text Word] OR radius fracture[Text Word] OR radius fractur*[Text Word] OR radii fractur*[Text Word] OR "ulna fractures"[MeSH Terms] OR ulna fractures[Text Word] OR ulna fracture[Text Word] OR ulna fractur*[Text Word] OR "Upper Extremity/injuries"[Mesh] OR upper extremity injury[Text Word] OR upper extremity injur*[Text Word] OR "finger injuries"[MeSH Terms] OR finger injuries[Text Word] OR finger injury[Text Word] OR finger injur*[Text Word] OR digit injury[Text Word] OR digit injur*[Text Word]56913



 

Appendix 4. EMBASE search strategy and results


Database: Embase

Date run: 28.11.2012 (KN)


NoQueryResults

#95#92 AND [humans]/lim192

#94#92 AND 'human'/de192

#93#91 AND [embase]/lim196

#92#91 NOT ([medline]/lim NOT [embase]/lim)196

#91#90 AND ([controlled clinical trial]/lim OR [randomized controlled trial]/lim)237

#90#28 AND #46 AND #873,753

#89#74 OR #80 OR #87378,705

#88#46 OR #692,778,374

#87#81 OR #82 OR #83 OR #84 OR #85 OR #86339,607

#86'work'/exp OR work AND status55,445

#85'work'/exp OR work AND retention OR 'job'/exp OR job AND retention9,808

#84'work'/exp OR work AND activity200,129

#83'work'/exp OR work AND ('disability'/exp OR disability)24,869

#82'work'/exp OR work AND ('ability'/exp OR ability) OR workability44,771

#81'disability'/exp OR disability AND ('management'/exp OR management)68,389

#80#75 OR #77 OR #7940,526

#79'employability' OR 'employability'/exp OR employability OR employable OR 'employee'/exp OR employee23,020

#78'employability'/exp OR employability OR employable OR employe*282,158

#77'unemployment' OR 'unemployment'/exp OR unemployment11,769

#76'unemployment'/exp9,133

#75'return to work'6,587

#74#71 OR #7317,535

#73'medical leave'/exp OR 'medical leave' OR 'sick leave'/exp OR 'sick leave' OR sick AND leave OR 'sickness leave' OR 'sickness absence'/exp OR 'sickness absence'16,185

#72'medical leave'/exp2,775

#71'absenteeism' OR 'absenteeism'/exp OR absenteeism OR absenteeism*13,714

#70'absenteeism'/exp12,279

#69#48 OR #50 OR #52 OR #55 OR #56 OR #58 OR #59 OR #60 OR #61 OR #62 OR #63 OR #64 OR #67 OR #68574,423

#68vocation* AND ('workplace'/exp OR workplace)757

#67'vocational workplace'1

#64'work site visit'4

#63'work'/exp OR work AND reintegration*745

#62'case manager'/exp OR 'case manager'2,008

#61'modified-duty' OR 'modified-duties' OR modified AND work*26,978

#60'workplace adjustment' OR (work* AND adjustmet)10

#59'workplace accomodation' OR (work* AND accomodation)99

#58'workplace intervention' OR (work* AND intervention)44,043

#57'workplace intervention'137

#56'vocational rehabilitation'/exp OR 'vocational rehabilitation' OR 'work rehabilitation' OR 'occupational rehabilitation'/exp OR 'occupational rehabilitation'10,740

#55‘training’/exp358,522

#54training*358,522

#53'vocational rehabilitation'/exp OR 'vocational rehabilitation' OR 'work rehabilitation'9,853

#52'vocational guidance'/exp OR 'vocational guidance' OR vocation*27,282

#51'vocational guidance'/exp2,306

#50'counseling'/exp OR 'counseling' OR counsel*143,002

#49'counseling'/exp95,845

#48'vocational rehabilitation'/exp OR 'vocational rehabilitation'9,685

#47'vocational rehabilitation'/exp8,675

#46#38 OR #39 OR #40 OR #41 OR #42 OR #43 OR #44 OR #452,517,303

#45'educational status'/exp OR 'educational status'31,641

#44'education'/exp OR 'education'1,163,555

#43'work'/exp OR 'work'918,154

#42'employment'/exp OR 'employment'70,323

#41'rehabilitation'/exp OR 'rehabilitation'467,402

#40'occupational health service'/exp OR 'occupational health service'9,623

#39'occupational health'/exp OR 'occupational health'192,978

#38'occupational medicine'/exp OR 'occupational medicine'81,626

#37'occupational medicine'/exp OR 'occupational medicine' OR occupation* AND ('medicine'/exp OR medicine)550,218

#36'educational status'/exp30,279

#35'education'/exp907,663

#34'work'/exp222,735

#33'employment'/exp44,921

#32'rehabilitation'/exp204,240

#31'occupational health service'/exp9,080

#30'occupational health'/exp168,102

#29'occupational medicine'/exp60,756

#28#13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #19 OR #20 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27160,001

#27'finger injuries'/exp OR 'finger injuries' OR 'finger injury'/exp OR 'finger injury' OR 'finger'/exp OR finger AND injur* OR 'digit injury' OR 'digit'/exp OR digit AND injur*16,988

#26'ulna fractures'/exp OR 'ulna fractures' OR 'ulna fracture'/exp OR 'ulna fracture' OR 'ulna'/exp OR ulna AND fractur*4,521

#25'radius fracture'/exp OR 'radius fracture' OR 'radius'/exp OR radius AND fractur* OR radii AND fractur*11,552

#24brachium AND fractur* OR brachial AND fractur*1,563

#23'shoulder fracture'/exp OR 'shoulder fracture' OR ('shoulder' OR 'shoulder'/exp OR shoulder AND fracture*)9,202

#22'shoulder fracture'/exp OR 'shoulder fracture' OR 'shoulder'/exp OR shoulder AND fracture*9,202

#21'humeral fracture'/de OR 'humeral fracture' OR 'humeral fractures'/de OR 'humeral fractures' OR humeral AND fractur* OR 'humerus fracture'/de OR 'humerus fracture' OR 'humeri fracture' OR humeri AND fractur*9,334

#20'humeral fracture'/exp OR 'humeral fracture' OR 'humeral fractures'/exp OR 'humeral fractures' OR humeral AND fractur* OR 'humerus fracture'/exp OR 'humerus fracture' OR 'humeri fracture' OR humeri AND fractur*9,334

#19'wrist injury'/exp OR 'wrist injury' OR ('wrist'/exp OR 'wrist' OR wrist* AND injur*)17,766

#18'wrist injury'/exp OR 'wrist injury' OR ('wrist'/exp OR 'wrist' AND injur*)17,520

#17'wrist injury'/exp OR 'wrist injury' OR 'wrist'/exp OR 'wrist' OR ('wrist'/exp OR wrist AND injur*)44,743

#16'wrist injury'/exp OR 'wrist injury' OR 'wrist'/exp OR wrist AND injur* OR wrists AND injur*17,720

#15'arm injury'/exp OR 'arm injury' OR 'arm'/exp OR arm AND injur*96,099

#14'tendon injury'/exp OR 'tendon injury' OR 'tendon'/exp OR tendon AND injur*43,791

#13'hand injury'/exp OR 'hand injury' OR 'hand'/exp OR 'hand' AND ('injury'/exp OR 'injury' OR injur*)71,393

#12'hand injury'/exp OR 'hand injury' OR 'hand' OR 'hand'/exp OR hand AND ('injury'/exp OR 'injury') OR injur*1,627,237

#11'hand injury'/exp OR 'hand injury' OR 'hand'/exp OR hand AND injur*71,393

#10'hand injury'/exp OR 'hand injury' OR 'hand'/exp OR hand AND ('injury'/exp OR injury) OR hands AND ('injury'/exp OR injury) OR 'hand'/exp OR hand AND injur* OR hands AND injur*74,838

#9'hand'/exp OR hand AND ('injury'/exp OR injury) OR hands AND ('injury'/exp OR injury) OR 'hand'/exp OR hand AND injur* OR hands AND injur*74,838

#8'ulna fracture'/exp2,326

#7'radius fracture'/exp6,894

#6'shoulder fracture'/exp420

#5'humerus fracture'/exp7,478

#4'wrist injury'/exp3,878

#3'arm injury'/exp48,544

#2'tendon injury'/exp15,191

#1'hand injury'/exp15,411



 

Appendix 5. CINAHL search strategy and results

Database: CINAHL

Data run: 05.05.2013


NoSearchCINAHL Heading or free textControl (Explode + Major Concept)Items found

#1hand injuriesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major2644

#2hand injur*Text Word4177

#3hands injur*Text Word654

#4tendon injuriesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major2762

#5tendon injur*Text Word4200

#6forearm injuriesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major1524

#7forearm injur*Text Word797

#8forearms injur*Text Word27

#9wrist injuriesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major922

#10wrists injur*Text Word104

#11wrist injur*Text Word1867

#12humeral fracturesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major833

#13humeral fractur*Text Word1286

#14humerus fractur*Text Word957

#15brachium fractur*Text Word0

#16brachial fractur*Text Word163

#17wrist fracturesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major291

#18wrists fractur*Text Word45

#19radius fracturesCINAHL HeadingMajor991

#20ulna fracturesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major317

#21ulna fractur*Text Word557

#22upper extremityCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major11403

#23upper extremity injur*Text Word1716

#24finger injuriesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major667

#25finger injur*Text Word1184

#26fingers injur*Text Word513

#27digit injur*Text Word192

#28arm injuriesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major7042

#29arms injur*Text Word332

#30arm injur*Text Word2391

#31elbow fracturesCINAHL HeadingMajor158

#32elbow fractur*Text Word1042

#33elbows fractur*Text Word80

#35elbow injuriesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major1322

#34elbow injur*Text Word2210

#36elbows injur*Text Word131

#37#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26 OR #27 OR #28 OR #29 OR #30 OR #31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35 #3630346

#38Occupational MedicineCINAHL HeadingMajor84

#39Occupational MedicineText Word2045

#40Occupational Health NursingCINAHL HeadingMajor4631

#41Occupational Health NursingText Word11071

#42Work EnvironmentCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major7198

#43Work EnvironmentText Word22806

#44Rehabilitation, VocationalCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major3428

#45Vocational RehabilitationText Word4998

#46Occupational healthCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major22982

#47Occupational healthText Word47098

#48Occupational health servicesCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major3544

#49Occupational health service*Text Word10835

#50rehabilitationCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major106793

#51rehabilitationText Word105593

#52Occupational rehabilitationText Word7775

#53workplace rehabilitationText Word590

#54trainingText Word91852

#55counselingCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major10611

#56counselingText Word29864

#57counsellingText Word6896

#58job accommodationCINAHL HeadingMajor267

#59job accommodationText Word720

#60workplace accommodationText Word209

#61#38 OR #39 OR #40 OR #41 OR #42 OR #43 OR #44 OR #45 OR #46 OR #47 OR #48 OR #49 OR #50 OR #51 OR #52 OR #53 OR #54 OR #55 OR #56 OR #57 OR #58 OR #59 OR #60338214

#62#61 AND #377428

#63return to workText Word3343

#64return-to-workText Word2314

#65unemploymentCINAHL HeadingMajor843

#66unemploymentText Word3435

#67employment of disableCINAHL HeadingExplode+Major3013

#68employment of disabledText Word4982

#69absenteeismCINAHL HeadingMajor1247

#70absenteeism*Text Word3371

#71employabilityText Word193

#72employableText Word38

#73employee*Text Word31578

#74work abilityText Word4599

#75work activityText Word5788

#76work disabilit*Text Word6402

#77sick leaveCINAHL HeadingMajor1289

#78sick leaveText Word3272

#79#63 OR #64 OR #65 OR #66 OR #67 OR #68 OR #69 OR #70 OR #71 OR #72 OR #73 OR #74 OR #75 OR #76 OR #77 OR #7859269

#80#79 AND #62366

limit trial20

limit RCT6



 

 

Appendix 6. PsycINFO search strategy and results

Database: PsycINFO (Ovid) 1967 to December Week 1/2012

Date run: 7.12.2012 (KN)


#SearchesResults

1hand injur*.mp.39

2tendon injur*.mp.7

3arm injur*.mp.11

4wrist injur*.mp.4

5((brachium and fractur*) or (brachial and fractur*)).mp.3

6(ulna fracture or (ulna and fractur*)).mp.4

7finger injur*.mp.1

8(radius fracture or (radius and fractur*)).mp.22

91 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 887

10occupational medicine.mp.162

11occupational health.mp.1477

12occupational health service*.mp.84

13rehabilitation.mp.62313

14employment.mp.34759

15work.mp.284934

16education.mp.277958

17educational status.mp.702

1810 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15or 16 or 17589819

19(counseling or counselling).mp.71696

20vocational guidance*.mp.657

21vocational training.mp.1218

22(vocational rehabilitation or work rehabilitation or occupational rehabilitation).mp.5461

23workplace intervention.mp.68

24(work* and intervention).mp.29621

25workplace adjustment.mp.17

26work* adjustment.mp.693

27(modified duty or modified duties).mp. [14

28case manager.mp.578

29work reintegration*.mp.13

30vocational workplace.mp.1

3119 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 or 26 or 27 or 28
or 29 or 30
105636

32absenteeism*.mp.3158

33(medical leave or sick leave or sickness leave or sickness absence).mp.1263

3432 or 333997

35return to work.mp.1444

36unemployment.mp.6366

37(employable or employability or employee).mp.38583

3835 or 36 or 3745710

39(disability management or disab* management).386

40(workability or work* ability).mp.508

41work disability.mp.322

42(work activity or work* activity).mp.538

43(work retention or work* retention or job retention).mp.281

44(work status or work* status).mp.961

4539 or 40 or 41 or 42 or 43 or 442924

4634 or 38 or 4549496

479 and 18 and 466



 

Appendix 7. Risk of bias assessment

 

1. Was the allocation sequence randomly generated?

 

Yes, low risk of bias

The investigators describe a random component in the sequence generation process such as: referring to a random number table; using a computer random number generator; coin tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots.

 

No, high risk of bias

The investigators describe a non-random component in the sequence generation process. Usually, the description would involve some systematic, non-random approach, for example: sequence generated by odd or even date of birth; sequence generated by some rule based on date (or day) of admission; sequence generated by some rule based on hospital or clinic record number.

 

Unclear

Insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement of 'Yes' or 'No'.

 

2. Was the treatment allocation adequately concealed?

 

Yes, low risk of bias

Participants and investigators enrolling participants could not foresee assignment because one of the following, or an equivalent method, was used to conceal allocation: central allocation (including telephone, web-based and pharmacy-controlled randomisation); sequentially-numbered drug containers of identical appearance; sequentially-numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes.

 

No, high risk of bias

Participants or investigators enrolling participants could possibly foresee assignments and thus introduce selection bias, such as allocation based on: using an open random allocation schedule (e.g. a list of random numbers); assignment envelopes were used without appropriate safeguards (e.g. if envelopes were unsealed or non­opaque or not sequentially numbered); alternation or rotation; date of birth; case record number; any other explicitly unconcealed procedure.

 

Unclear

Insufficient information to permit judgment of 'Yes' or 'No'. This is usually the case if the method of concealment is not described or not described in sufficient detail to allow a definite judgment, for example if the use of assignment envelopes is described, but it remains unclear whether envelopes were sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed.

 

3. Blinding - was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented during the study?

 

Yes, low risk of bias

Any one of the following.

  • No blinding, but the review authors judge that the outcome and the outcome measurement are not likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
  • Blinding of participants and key study personnel ensured, and unlikely that the blinding could have been broken.
  • Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, but outcome assessment was blinded and the non-blinding of others unlikely to introduce bias.

 

No, high risk of bias

Any one of the following.

  • No blinding or incomplete blinding, and the outcome or outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding.
  • Blinding of key study participants and personnel attempted, but likely that the blinding could have been broken.
  • Either participants or some key study personnel were not blinded, and the non-blinding of others likely to introduce bias.

 

Unclear

Any one of the following.

  • Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'Yes' or 'No'.
  • The study did not address this outcome.

 

4. Were incomplete outcome data adequately addressed?

 

Yes, low risk of bias

Any one of the following.

  • No missing outcome data.
  • Reasons for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true outcome (for survival data, censoring unlikely to be introducing bias).
  • Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups, with similar reasons for missing data across groups.
  • For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on the intervention effect estimate.
  • For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes not enough to have a clinically relevant impact on observed effect size.
  • Missing data have been imputed using appropriate methods.

 

No, high risk of bias

Any one of the following.

  • Reason for missing outcome data likely to be related to true outcome, with either imbalance in numbers or reasons for missing data across intervention groups.
  • For dichotomous outcome data, the proportion of missing outcomes compared with observed event risk enough to induce clinically relevant bias in intervention effect estimate.
  • For continuous outcome data, plausible effect size (difference in means or standardised difference in means) among missing outcomes enough to induce clinically relevant bias in observed effect size.
  • 'As-treated' analysis done with substantial departure of the intervention received from that assigned at randomisation.
  • Potentially inappropriate application of simple imputation.

 

Unclear

Any one of the following.

  • Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgement of 'Yes' or 'No' (e.g. number randomised not stated, no reasons for missing data provided).
  • The study did not address this outcome.

 

5. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

 

Yes, low risk of bias

Any of the following.

  • The study protocol is available and all of the study's pre-specified (primary and secondary) outcomes that are of interest in the review have been reported in the pre-specified way.
  • The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre-specified (convincing text of this nature may be uncommon).

 

No, high risk of bias

Any one of the following.

  • Not all of the study's pre-specified primary outcomes have been reported.
  • One or more primary outcomes is reported using measurements, analysis methods or subsets of the data (e.g. subscales) that were not pre-specified.
  • One or more reported primary outcomes were not pre-specified (unless clear justification for their reporting is provided, such as an unexpected adverse effect).
  • One or more outcomes of interest in the review are reported incompletely so that they cannot be entered in a meta-analysis.
  • The study report fails to include results for a key outcome that would be expected to have been reported for such a study.

 

Unclear

Insufficient information to permit judgement of 'Yes' or 'No'. It is likely that the majority of studies will fall into this category.

 

6. Other sources of potential bias

 

Yes, low risk of bias

The study appears to be free of other sources of bias.

 

No, high risk of bias

There is at least one important risk of bias. For example, the study:

  • had a potential source of bias related to the specific study design used; or
  • stopped early due to some data-dependent process (including a formal-stopping rule); or
  • had extreme baseline imbalance; or
  • has been claimed to have been fraudulent; or
  • had some other problem.

 

Unclear

There may be a risk of bias, but there is either:

  • insufficient information to assess whether an important risk of bias exists; or
  • insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias.

 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

WHH initiated and planned the review. WHH and HLL wrote the draft of the protocol. KKN provided related information for the traumatic upper limb injury background. CCC and HYC revised the protocol. WHH and HLL planned the search strategy. WHH and HLL undertook the search with the assistance of Trials Search Coordinator Kaisa Neuvonen from the editorial base of the Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group. WHH, CCC, and HLL participated in the decision-making process regarding inclusion and exclusion of trials. WHH, CCC, and HLL planned to participate in the data extraction and assessment of risk of bias of included studies. WHH is responsible for circulating progressive drafts of the review to all co-authors.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

None known

 

Sources of support

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms
 

Internal sources

  • Graduate Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (GIOSH), Kaohsiung Medical University, Taiwan.
    Motivational and free electronic database support for undertaking this review.
  • Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, E-Da Hospital / I-Shou University, Taiwan.
    Salary and time to enable the author to perform this review.
  • Department of Dermatology and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital-Chiayi, Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taiwan.
    Salary and time to enable the author to perform this review.
  • Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taiwan.
    Salary and time to enable the author to perform this review.

 

External sources

  • No sources of support supplied

 

Differences between protocol and review

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Authors' conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. Data and analyses
  10. Appendices
  11. Contributions of authors
  12. Declarations of interest
  13. Sources of support
  14. Differences between protocol and review
  15. Index terms

None

References

References to studies excluded from this review

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies excluded from this review
  18. Additional references
Bear-Lehman 1983 {published data only}
  • Bear-Lehman J. Factors affecting return to work after hand injury. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 1983;37:189-94.
Berecki-Gisolf 2012 {published data only}
  • Berecki-Gisolf J, Clay FJ, Collie A, McClure RJ. Predictors of sustained return to work after work-related injury or disease: Insights from workers' compensation claims records. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2012;22:283-91.
Burton 2008 {published data only}
  • Burton AK, Kendall NAS, Pearce BG, Birrell LN, Bainbridge LC. Management of upper limb disorders and the biopsychosocial model. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE): Norwich 2008.
Chang 2011 {published data only}
  • Chang JH, Wu M, Lee CL, Guo YL, Chiu HY. Correlation of return to work outcomes and hand impairment measures among workers with traumatic hand injury. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2011;21:9-16.
Cheng 2011 {published data only}
  • Cheng ASK, Cheng SWC. Use of job-specific functional capacity evaluation to predict the return to work of patients with a distal radius fracture. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 2011;65:8.
Feehan 2004 {published data only}
  • Feehan LM, Bassett K. Is there evidence for early mobilization following an extraarticular hand fracture?. Journal of Hand Therapy 2004;17:300-8.
Freeland 2007 {published data only}
Hales 1992 {published data only}
  • Hales TR, Bertsche PK. Management of upper extremity cumulative trauma disorders. AAOHN Journal 1992;40:118-28.
Lohstrater 2006 {published data only}
  • Lohstrater A, Bak P. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation management of the VBG in patients after distal radius fracture. Physikalische Medizin, Rehabilitationsmedizin, Kurortmedizin 2006; Vol. 16, issue 3:155-9.
Meijer 2006 {published data only}
  • Meijer EM, Sluiter JK, Heyma A, Sadiraj K, Frings-Dresen MHW. Cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment in sick-listed patients with upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders: a randomized, controlled trial with one-year follow-up. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 2006;79:654-64.
Pasila 1974 {published data only}
  • Pasila M, Karaharju EO, Lepisto PV. Role of physical therapy in recovery of function after Colles' fracture. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1974;55:130-4.
Schenck 1989 {published data only}
  • Schenck RR. Prevention and treatment of hand injuries. Professional Safety 1989;34(5):30-3.
Shaw 2003 {published data only}
  • Shaw WS, Feuerstein M, Miller VI, Wood PM. Identifying barriers to recovery from work related upper extremity disorders: use of a collaborative problem solving technique. AAOHN Journal 2003:337-46.
Shaw 2004 {published data only}
Unsworth-White 1994 {published data only}

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. AbstractRésumé
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Results
  7. Discussion
  8. Authors' conclusions
  9. Acknowledgements
  10. Data and analyses
  11. Appendices
  12. Contributions of authors
  13. Declarations of interest
  14. Sources of support
  15. Differences between protocol and review
  16. Characteristics of studies
  17. References to studies excluded from this review
  18. Additional references
Aas 2011
ABI & TUC 2002
  • Association of British Insurers and Trades Union Congress. Getting back to work: a rehabilitation discussion paper. London: ABI & TUC 2002.
Allaire 2003
Arends 2012
  • Arends I, Bruinvels David J, Rebergen David S, Nieuwenhuijsen K, Madan I, Neumeyer-Gromen A, et al. Interventions to facilitate return to work in adults with adjustment disorders. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006389.pub2; : CD006389]
Arnetz 2003
  • Arnetz BB, Sjögren B, Rydéhn B, Meisel R. Early workplace intervention for employees with musculoskeletal-related absenteeism: a prospective controlled intervention study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2003;45(5):499-506.
ASCC 2008
  • Australian Safety and Compensation Council. Work-related hand and wrist injuries in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, 2008.
Baker 1984
  • Baker SP, O'Neill B, Karpf RS. The injury fact book. Lexington Books (Lexington, Mass.), 1984.
Blackmore 1992
  • Blackmore SM, Bruening-Reilly L. Chapter 17: Returning the hand-injured patient to work. In: Stanley BG, Tribuzi SM editor(s). Concepts in Hand Rehabilitation. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1992:504.
BLS 2010
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. Bureau of Labor Statistics news: nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses requiring days away from work, 2010. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh2.t05.htm.. Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, (accessed 26 April 2012).
BSRM 2000
  • The British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine. Vocational rehabilitation: the way forward; a working party report. London: The British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2000.
Burke 1994
  • Burke SA, Harms-Constas CK, Aden PS. Return to work/work retention outcomes of a functional restoration program: a multi-center, prospective study with a comparison group. Spine 1994;19(17):1880-5.
Bültmann 2007
  • Bültmann U, Franche R-L, Hogg-Johnson S, Côté P, Lee H, Severin C, et al. Health status, work limitations, and return-to-work trajectories in injured workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Quality of Life Research 2007;16(7):1167-78.
Campbell 2001
Chamberlain 2009
  • Chamberlain MA, Moser VF, Ekholm KS, O'Connor RJ, Herceg M, Ekholm J. Vocational rehabilitation: an educational review. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2009;41(11):856-69.
Cheng 2007
  • Cheng AS, Hung LK. Randomized controlled trial of workplace-based rehabilitation for work-related rotator cuff disorder. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2007;17(3):487-503.
Chinn 2000
Cho 2000
  • Cho BK, Rosenfeldt F, Turina MI, Karp RB, Ferguson TB, Bodnar E, et al. Joint statement on redundant (duplicate) publication by the editors of the undersigned cardiothoracic journals. Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2000;69(2):663.
CLA 2011
  • Council of Labor Affairs. Yearly Bulletin 2011. http://statdb.cla.gov.tw/html/year/year00/310120.htm. Taipei: CLA, Executive Yuan, Taiwan ROC, http://statdb.cla.gov.tw/html/year/year00/310120.htm, (accessed on 4 May 2012).
Clay 2010
  • Clay FJ, Newstead SV, D'Elia A, McClure RJ. First return to work following injury: does it reflect a composite or a homogeneous outcome?. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2010;67(11):730-6.
Cooper 2007
  • Cooper C. Chapter 42: Hand impairments. In: Radomski MV, Latham CAT editor(s). Occupational Therapy for Physical Dysfunction. 5th Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007:1132.
de Boer 2011
Disler 2001
Ebel 2004
  • Ebel BE, Mack C, Diehr P, Rivara FP. Lost working days, productivity, and restraint use among occupants of motor vehicles that crashed in the United States. Injury Prevention 2004;10(5):314-9.
Elders 2004
Franche 2005
  • Franche RL, Baril R, Shaw W, Nicholas M, Loisel P. Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2005;15(4):525-42.
Frank 1996
  • Frank JW, Brooker A-S, DeMaio SE, Kerr MS, Maetzel A, Shannon HS, et al. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain: Part II: What do we know about secondary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention after disability begins. Spine 1996;21(24):2918-29.
Gobelet 2006
  • Gobelet C, Franchignoni F. Vocational Rehabilitation, pages:3-16. New York, LLC: Springer-Verlag, 2006.
GRADEpro
  • Brozek J, Oxman A, Schünemann H. GRADEpro. 3.6. GRADE working group, 2007.
Haahr 2005
  • Haahr JP, Ostergaard S, Dalsgaard J, Norup K, Frost P, Lausen S, et al. Exercises versus arthroscopic decompression in patients with subacromial impingement: a randomised, controlled study in 90 cases with a one year follow up. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2005;64(5):760-4.
Handoll 2006
  • Handoll HH, Madhok R, Howe TE. Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003324.pub2]
Higgins 2003
Higgins 2011
  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
HSE 2012
  • Health and Safety Executive. Health and safety statistics 2010/11: Site of injury- Injuries to employees by site and severity of injury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/tables/index.htm. (accessed on 26 April 2012).
Håland 2002
  • Håland Haldorsen EM, Grasdal AL, Skouen JS, Risa AE, Kronholm K, Ursin H. Is there a right treatment for a particular patient group? Comparison of ordinary treatment, light multidisciplinary treatment, and extensive multidisciplinary treatment for long-term sick-listed employees with musculoskeletal pain. Pain 2002;95(1-2):49-63.
Khan 2009
King 1992
  • King WK. Chapter 16: Traumatic injuries of the hand: crush injuries and amputations. In: Stanley BG, Tribuzi SM editor(s). Concepts in Hand Rehabilitation. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1992:472.
Kuoppala 2008
Li 2006
  • Li EJ, Li-Tsang CW, Lam CS, Hui KY, Chan CC. The effect of a "training on work readiness" program for workers with musculoskeletal injuries: a randomized control trial (RCT) study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2006;16(4):529-41.
Loisel 2003
  • Loisel P, Durand M-J, Diallo B, Vachon B, Charpentier N, Labelle J. From evidence to community practice in work rehabilitation: the Quebec experience. The Clinical Journal of Pain 2003;19(2):105-13.
Lubbert 2008
  • Lubbert PH, van der Rijt RH, Hoorntje LE, van der Werken C. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) in fresh clavicle fractures: a multi-centre double blind randomised controlled trial. Injury 2008;39(12):1444-52.
MacKenzie 1998
  • MacKenzie EJ, Morris JA, Jurkovich GJ, Yasui Y, Cushing BM, Burgess AR, et al. Return to work following injury: the role of economic, social, and job-related factors. American Journal of Public Health 1998;88(11):1630-7.
MacKenzie 2006
  • MacKenzie EJ, Bosse MJ, Kellam JF, Pollak AN, Webb LX, Swiontkowski MF, et al. Early predictors of long-term work disability after major limb trauma. The Journal of Trauma 2006;61(3):688-94.
Nair 2008
  • Nair A, Turner-Stokes L, Tyerman A. Vocational rehabilitation for acquired brain injury in adults (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD006021. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006021.pub2.. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008.
Post 2006
Pransky 2005
RevMan 2012
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Schaafsma 2010
Seland 2006
Soberg 2010
  • Soberg HL, Roise O, Bautz-Holter E, Finset A. Returning to work after severe multiple injuries: multidimensional functioning and the trajectory from injury to work at 5 years. The Journal of Trauma 2011;71(2):425-34.
van Oostrom 2009
van Tulder 2003
  • van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, the Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine 2003;28(12):1290-9.
WHO 2001
  • World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: WHO, 2001.