Skip Navigation


Occupational Medicine Advance Access originally published online on April 20, 2006
Occupational Medicine 2006 56(4):243-250; doi:10.1093/occmed/kql016
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
56/4/243    most recent
kql016v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walker-Bone, K.
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, K. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Walker-Bone, K.
Right arrow Articles by Palmer, K. T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Risk factors for specific upper limb disorders as compared with non-specific upper limb pain: assessing the utility of a structured examination schedule

Karen Walker-Bone, Isabel Reading, David Coggon, Cyrus Cooper and Keith T. Palmer

MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK

Background Few community-based epidemiological investigations of upper limb disorders (ULDs) have classified cases by validated procedures involving a structured clinical examination.

Aim To compare risk factor profiles for different diagnostic categories of ULD using one such examination scheme.

Methods A questionnaire about upper limb pain and demographic, occupational and psychosocial risk factors was mailed to 10 264 adults from two English general practices, followed by standardized physical examination in those with arm or neck pain. Logistic regression was used to compare those with specific ULDs and non-specific arm pain with those who had no neck or arm symptoms.

Results There was a 59% response rate. A total of 1197 subjects with arm or neck pain underwent standardized physical examination and were classified as having one or more of 11 specific ULDs or non-specific regional pain. Among these, 250 subjects with specific ULDs and 176 with only non-specific arm pain were compared with 2248 subjects who had no neck or arm symptoms. Certain physical risk factors were more strongly associated with specific disorders than with non-specific pain. In comparison with pain-free subjects, the odds ratios (ORs) in keyboard users (≥1 h versus <1 h/day) were 3.1 (95% CI 1.3, 7.8) for hand–wrist tendonitis but 1.3 (0.8, 2.1) for non-specific hand–wrist pain. Other differential associations were found with age, sex, manual versus non-manual employment and smoking. Unexpectedly, low vitality was similarly associated with both specific disorders and non-specific pain.

Conclusion These findings suggest that the schedule may usefully distinguish disorders that differ in their association with physical risk factors.

Keywords      Classification; occupational; soft tissue rheumatism


Correspondence to: Keith T. Palmer, MRC Epidemiology Resource Centre, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. Tel: +44 23 8077 7624; fax: +44 23 8070 4021; e-mail: ktp{at}mrc.soton.ac.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.