We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs .
For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect .
For organisational interventions , in the form of supplementary breaks , there is very low- quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort .
For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort .
BACKGROUND Work-related upper limb and neck musculoskeletal disorders ( MSDs ) are one of the most common occupational disorders worldwide .
Studies have shown that the percentage of office workers that suffer from MSDs ranges from 20 to 60 per cent .
The direct and indirect costs of work-related upper limb MSDs have been reported to be high in Europe , Australia , and the United States .
Although ergonomic interventions are likely to reduce the risk of office workers developing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs , the evidence is unclear .
This is an up date of a Cochrane Review which was last published in 2012 .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of physical , cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions , or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers .
A randomized controlled trial evaluating an alternative mouse or forearm support on change in median and ulnar nerve motor latency at the wrist.
BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an alternative mouse and /or a forearm support board on  nerve function at the wrist among engineers . METHODS This r and omized controlled intervention trial followed 206 engineers for 1 year . Distal motor latency ( DML ) at baseline and follow-up was conducted for the median and ulnar nerves at the right wrist . RESULTS One hundred fifty-four subjects agreed to a nerve conduction study at the beginning and end of the study period . Those who received the alternative mouse had a protective effect ( OR = 0.47 , 95 % CI 0.22 - 0.98 ) on change in the right ulnar DML . There was no significant effect on the median nerve DML . The forearm support board had no significant effect on the median or ulnar nerve DML . CONCLUSIONS In engineers who use a computer for more than 20 hr per week , an alternative mouse may have a protective effect for ulnar nerve function at the wrist . No protective effect of a forearm support board was found for the median nerve
We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs .
For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect .
For organisational interventions , in the form of supplementary breaks , there is very low- quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort .
For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort .
BACKGROUND Work-related upper limb and neck musculoskeletal disorders ( MSDs ) are one of the most common occupational disorders worldwide .
Studies have shown that the percentage of office workers that suffer from MSDs ranges from 20 to 60 per cent .
The direct and indirect costs of work-related upper limb MSDs have been reported to be high in Europe , Australia , and the United States .
Although ergonomic interventions are likely to reduce the risk of office workers developing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs , the evidence is unclear .
This is an up date of a Cochrane Review which was last published in 2012 .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of physical , cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions , or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers .