Differential relations of somatic complaints in a young, healthy working population

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Persijn ◽  
G. Crombez ◽  
A. van Nieuwenhuyse ◽  
O. Vandenbergh ◽  
G. Moens
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 381-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Okan Ozkunt ◽  
Kerim Sariyilmaz ◽  
Halil Can Gemalmaz ◽  
Ozcan Kaya ◽  
Fatih Dikici

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Lotter ◽  
Tobias Lieb ◽  
Jochen Molsner ◽  
Viktor Breul

Abstract BackgroundTo investigate the association between different clinical endpoints and the presence of upper extremity work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) in a healthy working population. Furthermore, the influence of socio-demographic, work-related and individual predictors on different endpoints was examined.MethodsTwo self-completion questionnaires were administered to 70 workers and employees. In addition, a standardized physical examination and an industry test were performed in this cross-sectional study. Correlations between WMSDs and clinical endpoints were analysed with the Spearman method. Depending on the type of dependent endpoint, linear or logistic multivariate regression models were used to study the strength of associations with a pre-defined set of potential influencing factors.ResultsThe prevalence of WMSDs was 56% (39/70). Correlations between WMSDs and the DASH score / pain under strain (VAS) were by far the strongest ones. Independent predictors could not be identified as risk factors for WMSDs, but there was some correlation between these factors.ConclusionsThe DASH score, used in the primary analysis of the study data, remains a close candidate for best surrogate endpoint for WMSD detection. The VAS has to be examined for this role in further research. Our analysis should help to improve the methodological quality of future occupational health studies through improved standards.Trial registrationThis study was registered at ClinicalTrials.org with the identifier NCT03014128, on January 9, 2017.


2013 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 249-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis Calleja-Panero ◽  
Elba Llop-Herrera ◽  
Montserrat Ruiz-Moraga ◽  
Juan de la Revilla-Negro ◽  
Eva Calvo-Bonacho ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Umber Waheed ◽  
Roger Greenlaw ◽  
Sherry Falsetti

Background: Autoimmune disease prevalence is rising at an increasing rate. However, little research currently exists on pre-screenings for autoimmunity and early disease management. We propose wellness visits should include an autoimmune disease panel screening for autoantibodies at preclinical and clinical levels. Methods: A working population of individuals without formally diagnosed autoimmune disease underwent company-sponsored wellness visits. Wellness markers such as blood pressure and lipid measurements and an autoantibody panel were obtained during the visits. Participants were offered functional medicine information afterwards. Results: Seventy-eight participants completed the visits. One or more wellness marker “abnormalities” were seen in 97% (76/78) of participants. Each wellness marker’s frequency of abnormality ranged from 13–82% of the participants. Preclinical or clinical autoantibody levels were seen in 53% (41/78) of the “healthy” working population with no previous autoimmune disease diagnoses. Preclinical markers were seen in 21% (16/78)of participants and clinical markers were seen in 32% (25/78) of participants. At least one wellness screening abnormality was seen in 98% (40/41) of participants with positive autoantibody findings. At least 50% of participants with a specific wellness abnormality tested at the higher “clinically” significant autoantibody levels. Conclusion: Preliminary findings from this study suggest that the integration of an autoantibody panel in wellness visits may be beneficial. Individuals may also consider healthier living practices and proactive prevention of autoimmune disease pathogenesis through applications of functional medicine and therapeutic lifestyle change. Clinical marker findings in asymptomatic individuals raises a limitation in the usefulness of such a panel, and further research such as a placebo-controlled prospective cohort study with an intervention trial or serial testing of autoantibody prevalence is needed.


2000 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. S75
Author(s):  
A. Kardos ◽  
G. Watterich ◽  
M. Csanády ◽  
B. Casadei ◽  
L. Rudas

Author(s):  
Oliver Lotter ◽  
Tobias Lieb ◽  
Jochen Molsner ◽  
Viktor Breul

A wide range of endpoints and methods of analysis can be observed in occupational health studies in the context of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). Comparison of study results is therefore difficult. We investigated the association between different clinical endpoints and the presence of upper extremity WMSDs in a healthy working population. Furthermore, the influence of socio-demographic, work-related, and individual predictors on different endpoints was examined. Two self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 70 workers and employees. In addition, a standardized physical examination and an industry test were performed in this cross-sectional study. Correlations between WMSDs and clinical endpoints were analyzed with the Spearman method and prediction ellipses. Multiple regression models were used to study the strength of associations with a pre-defined set of potential influencing factors. The prevalence of WMSDs was 56% (39/70). Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score/pain under strain showed the strongest correlations with WMSDs. When analyzing the correlation between WMSDs and pre-selected predictors, none of the predictors could be identified as a risk factor. The DASH score remains a close candidate for best surrogate endpoint for WMSDs detection. Standardized analysis methods could improve the methodological quality of future occupational health studies.


PLoS Genetics ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e1001239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Coassin ◽  
Martina Schweiger ◽  
Anita Kloss-Brandstätter ◽  
Claudia Lamina ◽  
Margot Haun ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Pallarés‐Carratalá ◽  
Jose A. Quesada ◽  
Domingo Orozco‐Beltrán ◽  
Nuria Amigó‐Grau ◽  
Adriana Lopez‐Pineda ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document