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 ? ”
The Effect of an Ergonomic Intervention on Musculoskeletal, Psychosocial and Visual Strain of VDT Data Entry Work: The Polish Part of the International Study
A group of routine data entry operators ( female ) was included in the Polish MEPS ( musculoskeletal — eyestrain— psychosocial — stress ) study . Before the intervention , ergonomic assessment revealed improper working conditions such as inadequate lighting , uncomfortable chairs , and lack of forearm and wrist support while medical examination revealed that trapezius muscle load along with upper arm , head and back angles were higher than advisable . Subjects complained about neck and shoulder pain , visual problems , and psychosocial conditions . The ergonomic intervention included installation of new luminaires and Venetian blinds , new chairs , repair of ventilators , and optometric corrections . The results after the intervention showed mainly improvement in chair comfort , lighting conditions , visual strain , and sitting posture . However , financial limitations did not allow satisfactory completion of the intervention leading to a mixed interpretation of the results
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 ? ”