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 Randomized Controlled Trial to Prevent Patient Lift and Transfer Injuries of Health Care Workers
Study Design . R and omized controlled trial ( RCT ) . Objectives . To compare the effectiveness of training and equipment to reduce musculoskeletal injuries , increase comfort , and reduce physical dem and s on staff performing patient lifts and transfers at a large acute care hospital . Summary of Background Data . Back injury to nursing staff during patient h and ling tasks is a major issue in health care . The value of mechanical assistive devices in reducing injuries to these workers is unclear . Methods . This three-armed RCT consisted of a “ control arm , ” a “ safe lifting ” arm , and a “ no strenuous lifting ” arm .  A medical , surgical , and rehabilitation ward were each r and omly assigned to each arm . Both intervention arms received intensive training in back care , patient assessment , and h and ling techniques . Hence , the “ safe lifting ” arm used improved patient h and ling techniques using manual equipment , whereas the “ no strenuous lifting ” arm aim ed to eliminate manual patient h and ling through use of additional mechanical and other assistive equipment . Results . Frequency of manual patient h and ling tasks was significantly decreased on the “ no strenuous lifting ” arm . Self-perceived work fatigue , back and shoulder pain , safety , and frequency and intensity of physical discomfort associated with patient h and ling tasks were improved on both intervention arms , but staff on the mechanical equipment arm showed greater improvements . Musculoskeletal injury rates were not significantly altered . Conclusions . The “ no strenuous lifting ” program , which combined training with assured availability of mechanical and other assistive patient h and ling equipment , most effectively improved comfort with patient h and ling , decreased staff fatigue , and decreased physical dem and s. The fact that injury rates were not statistically significantly reduced may reflect the less sensitive nature of this indicator compared with the subjective indicators
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 ? ”