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 ? ”
A comprehensive work injury prevention program with clerical and office workers: Phase II.
Sixteen full-time clerical and office workers participated in this prospect i ve parallel-r and omized trial . Intervention consisted of four hours of individualized training through a multi-faceted injury prevention program . In Phase I , musculoskeletal symptoms , stress , and energy levels were measured before and after intervention . Differences between Group A ( intervention ) and Group B ( control ) were described ; pre to post differences between members within each group were also described . In Phase II , there were a greater number of statistically and clinical ly relevant differences within Group A at week 16 ( eleven weeks following intervention ) than at week five ( immediately post-intervention ) . The eyes , neck , shoulder , elbow-forearm , and wrist-h and were impacted most positively by intervention , however , the frequency and intensity of headaches increased . Stress and energy level differences were minimal . Group B workers received intervention during weeks 18 - 21 . Differences in average measures from pre to immediately post-intervention were greater within Group B than Group A. Both groups reported fewer sick days during the month of intervention than during pre and post-intervention months
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 ? ”