Levels of evidence for interventions associated with positive effects were : Moderate evidence for arm supports ; and Limited evidence for ergonomics training plus workstation adjustments , new chair and rest breaks .
Levels of evidence for interventions associated with “ no effect ” were : Strong evidence for workstation adjustment alone ; Moderate evidence for biofeedback training and job stress management training ; and Limited evidence for cognitive behavioral training .
No interventions were associated with “ negative effects ” .
Conclusion It is difficult to make strong evidence d-based recommendations about what practitioners should do to prevent or manage upper extremity MSDs .
There is a paucity of high quality OHS interventions evaluating upper extremity MSDs and none focused on traumatic injury outcomes or workplace m and ated pre-placement screening exams .
Background Little is known about the most effective occupational health and safety ( OHS ) interventions to reduce  upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders ( MSDs ) and injuries .
Methods A systematic review used a best evidence synthesis approach to address the question : “ do occupational health and safety interventions have an effect on upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms , signs , disorders , injuries , cl aims and lost time ? ”
Musculoskeletal, visual and psychosocial stress in VDU operators before and after multidisciplinary ergonomic interventions.
The study has a parallel group design with two intervention groups ( T and S ) and one control group ( C ) of VDU operators . Three serial interventions were carried out in the T and S groups , first a new lighting system , then new workplaces and last an optometric examination and corrections if needed . The new lighting gave significantly increased illuminance levels , increased luminances of the room surfaces and better luminance distribution . The two intervention groups reported significant improvement of the lighting conditions , as well as of the visual conditions and significantly reduced visual discomfort and glare . Significant reduction of headache was found in one of the intervention groups . Optometric corrections reduced the visual discomfort in both the intervention groups . When looking at those given new corrections , a significant reduction was found in the T group and a clear tendency was also found in the S group . The C group reported no improvements for any of these health outcomes . The workplace intervention gave the operator the possibility to support the whole forearm and h and on the table top . Before the intervention there were no significant differences between the three groups regarding shoulder pain and static trapezius electromyographic ( EMG ) load . Two years after the intervention , a significant reduction of shoulder pain was reported in the T and S groups in parallel with a significant reduction in static trapezius load , while no such reduction was found in the C group . At the same time , both static trapezius load and shoulder pain were significantly lower in the T and S groups compared with the C group . Pain in the forearm and h and showed no significant changes in any of the groups during the study period . However , there seem to be a relationship between pain in the forearm and h and and the time the operator used the mouse . The C group reported significantly higher intensity of pain and used the mouse significantly more than the S group
Levels of evidence for interventions associated with positive effects were : Moderate evidence for arm supports ; and Limited evidence for ergonomics training plus workstation adjustments , new chair and rest breaks .
Levels of evidence for interventions associated with “ no effect ” were : Strong evidence for workstation adjustment alone ; Moderate evidence for biofeedback training and job stress management training ; and Limited evidence for cognitive behavioral training .
No interventions were associated with “ negative effects ” .
Conclusion It is difficult to make strong evidence d-based recommendations about what practitioners should do to prevent or manage upper extremity MSDs .
There is a paucity of high quality OHS interventions evaluating upper extremity MSDs and none focused on traumatic injury outcomes or workplace m and ated pre-placement screening exams .
Background Little is known about the most effective occupational health and safety ( OHS ) interventions to reduce  upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders ( MSDs ) and injuries .
Methods A systematic review used a best evidence synthesis approach to address the question : “ do occupational health and safety interventions have an effect on upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms , signs , disorders , injuries , cl aims and lost time ? ”