Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Occupational exposures and rotator cuff disease / biceps tendinitis
Aberdeen Pain Research CollaborationEpidemiology Group, Department of Public Health
Dr Gareth JonesSenior Lecturer in Epidemiology
One-Month Prevalence
Shoulder: 24%
Low back: 28%
Headache: 15%
Abdomen: 8%
Foot: 13%
Low back: 28%
Thigh / Hip: 28%
Hand: 15%
Knee: 21%
Abdomen: 8%
Shoulder Pain Aetiological Studies
• Miranda et al 2001– Physical strenuousness – Working with flexed trunk– Working in twisted posture – Working with rotated neck – Working with elevated arms
• Palmer et al 2001a– Keyboard use
• Bergenudd et al 1988– Workplace dissatisfaction
• Palmer et al 2001b– Use of vibrating tools
2
Limitations of Aetiological Studies
• Cross-sectional / Case-control studies– Onset of shoulder pain– Temporal course of events
• Studies limited to one workforce– External validity – Particular combinations of exposures
• Healthy worker effect– Solution: Longitudinal studies– Limitation: Very resource intensive
Harkness et al 2003
• Prospective cohort
• 12 occupational groups
• 803 subjects free of shoulder pain
• Follow-up– 12 months – 24 months – New prevalence: 15% – New prevalence: 15%
Harkness et al 2003
10.0
Pai
n O
nset
10.0
Pai
n O
nset
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der P
YesNo
Lift heavyweights
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der P
Push / pullweights
Lift aboveshoulder
Work withelevated arms
Carry weighton shoulder
YesNo
Lift heavyweights
Fredriksson et al 1999
• Prospective study
• Range of occupations
• 485 subjects
• Predictors of shoulder pain onset– High mental load at work– Monotonous work– Low social support
3
Prognosis of Shoulder Pain
• Few studies in general population
• Patients in primary care– More severe symptoms than general populationy p g p p– Croft et al 1996
• 49% reported a complete recovery at 18 months
– van der Windt et al 1996• 59% fully recovered at 12 months
Rotator Cuff / Biceps Tendon
Shoulder Pain
• Pain can originate from many sites– Tendinitis– Bursitis– Referred painp
• Cervical or thoracic spine• Internal organs
• Lack of evidence as to what clinical conditions (with pain as a symptom) have distinct aetiological aspects
Rotator Cuff / Biceps Tendon
• Four muscles and their tendons– Subscapularis– Supraspinatus– Infraspinatusp– Teres minor
• Tendons form continuous cuff around humeral head
• Pathology– Inflammation– Damage (tear)
4
Case Ascertainment
• Presenting symptoms– Pain (antero-laterally)– Inhibition of movement
• Gold standard– Imaging
• Physical findings– Tenderness on palpation– Clinical examination
• Jobe• Gerber• Neer• Hawkins
• Clinical practice– Patient history– Clinical examination
Descriptive Epidemiology
• General population– Seldom recorded– Estimates
• ~10% of cases of persistent shoulder pain• ~85% of patients presenting to primary care with shoulder pain have a85% of patients presenting to primary care with shoulder pain have a
rotator cuff tear
• Working population– Rotator cuff syndrome: 6.8% (men) and 9.0% (women)– Rotator cuff tendinitis: 2.0%– Rotator cuff tendinitis: 3.8%– Biceps tendinitis: 0.5%
Descriptive Epidemiology
• Inconsistent evidence of gender differences
• Clear increase in prevalence with age– Longer cumulative exposure to risk factorsg p– Age-related degenerative changes in rotator cuff tendons– Disease of long duration
Occupation
• Supraspinatus tendinitis– House painters 4.4%– Fish processing workers 5.0%– Slaughterhouse workers 6.9%
W ld 27%– Welders 27%
• Infraspinatus tendinitis– Fish processing workers 12%
• Supraspinatus tendon pathology (MRI)– Machinists / Mechanics / Painters 38%
Occupationalaetiology?
5
Occupation
• Only a marker for aetiological factor
• Provides no task-specific information
• Need to study specific work exposures
Aims and Objectives
Aims and Objectives
• To summarise the existing epidemiological evidence with respect to the associations between occupational-related exposures and rotator cuff disease and / or biceps tendinitis
• Specific objectives– To present exposure-response patterns, where present– To assess any impact of gender– To evaluate the evidence with respect to prognosis
Outcome Definition
• Rotator cuff disease and / or biceps tendinitis
• Standard definitions– No diagnostic guidelines for physical diseases in ICD-10g g p y– No consensus reached re: diagnostic criteria for shoulder
disorders
• Outcome:– Exception:
Pain plus objective physical findingsShoulder pain plus tenderness on palpation alone
6
Methods
Methods: Literature Search
• Electronic bibliographic databases– Medine (from 1966)– Embase (from 1980)
• Search date– February 7th, 2007
• Three searches– Outcomes of interest– Epidemiological search terms– Exposures of interest
Methods: Literature Search
‘Shoulder’search
shoulderrotator cuff
i t
‘Epidemiology’search
epidemiolo$aetiolo$
ti l $
‘Occupational’search
occupation$employment$j b$ “OR”supraspinatus
infraspinatusteres minorsubscapularisbiceps tend$glenohumeralimpingement
“OR”
etiolo$risk factor$predictive factor$risk marker$odds ratio$hazard ratio$risk ratio$rate ratio$prevalence ratio$relative risk$
“OR”
job$work$task
“OR”
Methods: Literature Search
‘Shoulder’search
‘Epidemiology’search
‘Occupational’search
Combination(‘AND’)
Titlesfor review
Removeduplicates
Limit to EnglishLimit to Human
7
Methods: Review Strategy
Reviewer 2Reviewer 1
Titlesfor review
Reviewer 3
ReviewabstractsDiscard
Agree to reject Agree to acceptDisagree
Methods: Assessing Study Quality
• Combination– Objective characteristics– Subjective assessment
T i• Two reviewers
• Ten areas of methodology– Study design – Confounding– Sample size – Blinding– Sampling method – Objective exposure– Participation / follow-up – Exposure-response data– Bias – Outcome measurement
Methods: Contributory Evidence
• Very stringent outcome criteria– Anticipated few studies
• Many studies with self-reported shoulder painy p p
• Contributory evidence– Studies identified from literature search– Subjectively measured outcome– High quality prospective cohort studies
Methods: Grading of Evidence
Evidence of causal relationshipGrade
Strong evidence (causal relationship is very likely)+++
Moderate evidence (causal relationship is likely)++
Weak evidence (causal relationship is possible)+
Insufficient evidence of a causal association0
Evidence suggesting lack of causal association–
8
Main Findings
Results: Literature Search
‘Outcome’n = 56,174
‘Epidemiology’n = 1,456,900
‘Occupational’n = 1,305,486
Boolean ‘AND’n = 1062
Titles for reviewn = 651
Duplicatesn = 301
English / Humann = 110
Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria
• Review of titles– Suggestion that outcome included pain / disability in the
shoulder / neck / upper limb
• Review of abstracts– Explicit mention that outcome was assessed by self-report– Explicit mention that only non-occupational exposures were
assessed
Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria
• Review of full papers – Outcome– Study used solely a self-reported outcome– Outcome was pain plus tenderness alone
• Review of full papers – Exposure– Study examined only non-occupational exposures
• Review of full papers – Risk Effects– No data on the magnitude of any risk effects– No data from which risk effects were calculable
9
ABSTRACTS
Discardn = 324
Results: Literature Review
TITLESn = 651
Includen = 13
Discardn = 99
FULL PAPERSn = 112
Discardn = 215
n = 327
Included Studies: Overview
• 13 original articles – Andersen & Gaardboe 1993 – Svendsen et al 2004a– Chiang et al 1993 – Svendsen et al 2004b– Stenlund et al 1993 – Miranda et al 2005
F t & A d 1999 W t l 2005– Frost & Andersen 1999 – Werner et al 2005– Kaergaard & Andersen 2000 – Melchior et al 2006– Punnett et al 2000 – Walker-Bone et al 2006– Frost et al 2002
• 12 studies– Kaergaard & Andersen 2000 – Frost et al 2002
Included Studies: Overview
• Different study designs– Cross-sectional n = 10– Case-control n = 1– Cohort n = 2
• Location– Northern Europe n = 8– Europe other n = 2– USA n = 2– Elsewhere n = 1
Included Studies: Overview
• Different populations– Sewing machine operators – Automobile industry– Fish processing – Machinists– Construction – House painters
Sl ht h Offi k– Slaughterhouse – Office workers– Chemical factory – General population
10
Included Studies: Outcomes
• Shoulder pain with physical findings
• Rotator cuff syndrome / Rotator cuff disorder
• Shoulder tendinitis / Chronic rotator cuff tendinitis• Shoulder tendinitis / Chronic rotator cuff tendinitis
• Shoulder impingement syndrome
• Rotator cuff tendinitis and / or myofascial pain syndrome
• Supraspinatus tendinitis
Included Studies: Exposures
• Exposures– Binary– Cumulative exposure
• Months / Years
Proportion– Proportion• Job cycle• Maximum voluntary contraction
• Exposure measurement– Questionnaire / Interview– Sub-group measurement– Sub-group observation / video
Contributory Evidence
• High quality cohort studies, self-report outcome
• Papers: n = 7
• Reported outcomes– Shoulder pain alone– Shoulder pain with or without neck / upper limb pain
Occupational Exposures
• Physical exposures– Position of upper limb– Manual handling / force– Repetitive tasks
Oth h i l– Other physical exposures
• Psychosocial exposures
11
Position of Upper Limb
• Papers: n = 6
• Conclusion– Moderate [++] to Strong [+++] evidence to suggest a causal [ ] g [ ] gg
relationship between working with arms in an elevated position and rotator cuff disease / biceps tendinitis
Position of Upper Limb
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Walker-Boneet al 2006
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Walker-Boneet al 2006
Svendsen et al 2004b10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Svendsen et al 2004b Miranda et al 2005Walker-Boneet al 2006
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
1hr
Work with handsabove shoulders
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
1hr
Work with handsabove shoulders
90o (months)
>24
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
90o (months)
>24 None 1-3 4-13 14-23 >23
Duration (yrs) working with handabove shoulder >1hr per day
1hr
Work with handsabove shoulders
Contributory Evidence
• Provides evidence to support association
• Miranda et al 2001– Working with arms above shoulderg
• Harkness et al 2003– Working with hands above shoulder level– Lifting heavy weights above shoulder level
Position of Upper Limb
• Evidence to suggest a causal relationship– Moderate [++] to Strong [+++]– Consistent evidence across a number of studies in a number
of different occupational environmentsSupported by high quality cohorts with subjective outcomes– Supported by high quality cohorts with subjective outcomes
• Insufficient studies presenting robust exposure-response data– Not possible to inform exposure standards
• Degrees of elevation• Time with arms elevated
– Not possible to identify ‘safe’ limits of exposure
12
Occupational Exposures
• Physical exposures– Position of upper limb– Manual handling / force– Repetitive tasks
Oth h i l– Other physical exposures
• Psychosocial exposures
Manual Handling / Force
• Papers: n = 8
• Conclusion– Moderate evidence [++] to suggest a causal relationship [ ] gg p
between manual handling / occupational force requirements and rotator cuff disease / biceps tendinitis
Manual Handling / Force
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Chiang et al 199310.0
r Dis
orde
r
Miranda et al 2005Chiang et al 199310.0
r Dis
orde
r
Miranda et al 2005Chiang et al 1993 Frost et al 2002
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
No Yes
Upper limb force-ful movements
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
None 1-3 4-13 14-23 >23
Duration (yrs) of frequent lifting:>5kg, >2 time / min, >2hrs / day
No Yes
Upper limb force-ful movements
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
None 1-3 4-13 14-23 >23
Duration (yrs) of frequent lifting:>5kg, >2 times / min, >2hrs / day
No Yes
Upper limb force-ful movements
Ref 10%
Manual Handling / Force
• Evidence not consistent
• Werner et al 2005– No difference in peak force requirement between cases
(persons with incident shoulder tendinitis) and controls
• Svendsen et al 2004a– Supraspinatus tendinopathy– Lifetime shoulder force requirements
• Low OR: 1.0• Medium 1.2 (0.5-3.2)• High 0.7 (0.3-1.7)
13
Contributory Evidence
• Provides evidence to support association
• Harkness et al 2003– Lifting weightsg g– Carrying weights on one shoulder
• Andersen et al 2003– Force requirements
Manual Handling / Force
• Evidence to suggest a causal relationship– Moderate [++]– A number of studies have observed a positive relationship
between this exposure and outcomeSupportive contributory evidence– Supportive contributory evidence
• Not all studies have provided consistent evidence
Occupational Exposures
• Physical exposures– Position of upper limb– Manual handling / force– Repetitive tasks
Oth h i l– Other physical exposures
• Psychosocial exposures
Repetitive Tasks
• Papers: n = 5
• Conclusion– Weak evidence [+] to suggest a causal relationship between [ ] gg p
repetitive tasks and rotator cuff disease / biceps tendinitis
14
Repetitive Tasks
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Chiang et al 199310.0
r Dis
orde
r
Chiang et al 1993 Frost et al 200210.0
r Dis
orde
r
Frost et al 2002 Frost et al 2002Chiang et al 1993
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
No Yes
Repetitive movements of arm
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
No Yes
Repetitive movements of arm
No Yes
Repetitive manualhandling
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
No Yes
Repetitive manualhandling
None 15No Yes
Repetitive movements of arm
Contributory Evidence
• Inconsistent
• Andersen et al 2003– Shoulder movements (per minute)(p )– Increase in likelihood of shoulder pain
• Harkness et al 2003– Repetitive arm / wrist movements– No increase in likelihood of shoulder pain
Repetitive Tasks
• Evidence to suggest a causal relationship– Weak [+]– Evidence across a number of studies suggesting a positive
relationshipInconsistent supporting evidence using subjective outcomes– Inconsistent supporting evidence using subjective outcomes
– Cannot rule out bias or confounding – particularly by manual handing / force requirements
• Insufficient studies examining repetition and force requirements independently
Combination: Force & Repetition
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Frost et al 2002
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
High freq,Low force
Low freq,High force
High freq,High force
Referencegroup
Low freq,Low force
15
Interaction: Force * Repetition
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Chiang et al 199310.0
r Dis
orde
r
Chiang et al 199310.0
r Dis
orde
r
Chiang et al 199310.0
r Dis
orde
r
Chiang et al 1993
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
Forceful movementsof upper arm
No Yes No Yes
Repetitive movementsof upper arm
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
Forceful movementsof upper arm
No Yes No Yes
Repetitive movementsof upper arm
Yes
Interaction offorce * repetition
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
Forceful movementsof upper arm
No Yes No Yes
Repetitive movementsof upper arm
Yes
Interaction offorce * repetition
Expected
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
Forceful movementsof upper arm
No Yes No Yes
Repetitive movementsof upper arm
Yes
Interaction offorce * repetition
Expected Actual
Interaction: Force * Repetition
• Evidence to suggest a causal relationship– Insufficient [0]– Data is sparse– No contributory evidence
Occupational Exposures
• Physical exposures– Position of upper limb– Manual handling / force– Repetitive tasks
Oth h i l– Other physical exposures
• Psychosocial exposures
Occupational Vibration
• Papers: n = 2
• Miranda et al 2005– Working with vibrating tool,
>2hrs /day
• Stenlund et al 1993– Per tertile increase in work-
life exposure
• Conclusion– Insufficient evidence [0] to suggest a causal relationship
between occupational vibration and rotator cuff disease / biceps tendinitis
• None OR: 1.0• 1-3yrs 0.6 (0.1-4.6)• 4-13yrs 2.5 (1.0-5.9)• 14-23yrs 3.5 (1.5-7.8)• >23yrs 1.4 (0.5-4.4)
• Right shoulder 1.9 (1.0-3.4)• Left shoulder 2.5 (1.1-5.9)
16
Occupational Driving
• Papers: n = 1
• Miranda et al 2005– Driving >4hrs / day, >3
months / year
• Conclusion– Insufficient evidence [0] to suggest a causal relationship
between occupational driving and rotator cuff disease / biceps tendinitis
• None OR: 1.0• 1-3yrs 2.6 (0.9-7.2)• 4-13yrs 1.4 (0.6-3.5)• 14-23yrs 2.7 (1.1-6.4)• >23yrs 1.1 (0.4-3.0)
Occupational Exposures
• Physical exposures– Position of upper limb– Manual handling / force– Repetitive tasks
Oth h i l– Other physical exposures
• Psychosocial exposures
Work Demands
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Miranda et al 200510.0
r Dis
orde
r
Miranda et al 2005 Svendsen et al 2004b10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Miranda et al 2005 Svendsen et al 2004b Walker-Boneet al 2006
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
Low High
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
Low High Low High
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
Low High Low High No Yes
Control over Work / Job Strain
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Svendsen et al 2004b10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Svendsen et al 2004b Walker-Boneet al 2006
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Kaergaard andAndersen 2000
Svendsen et al 2004b Walker-Boneet al 2006
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
High Low
Control
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
High Low
Control
Yes No
Control
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
High Low
Strain
High Low
Control
Yes No
Control
17
Perceived Support
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Kaergaard andAndersen 2000
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Kaergaard andAndersen 2000
Walker-Boneet al 2006
10.0
r Dis
orde
r
Kaergaard andAndersen 2000
Walker-Boneet al 2006
Svendsen et al 2004b
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
High Low
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
High Low Yes No
0.1
1.0
OR
(95%
CI)
of S
houl
der
High Low Yes No High Low
Contributory Evidence
• Inconsistent findings– Work demands– Control over work
• Evidence
• Perceived (lack of) support– Work not entirely consistent– Overall suggestion of
positive association– Small effect• Evidence
– No effect– Effect of modest and
non-significant magnitude
• Conclusion– Insufficient [0] evidence to suggest a causal relationship between
most psychosocial exposures and rotator cuff disease / biceps tendinitis
– Perceived lack of support: weak evidence [+]
Other Issues
Other Issues
• Sensitivity analysis
• Gender
• Prognosis
18
Sensitivity Analysis
• Stringent outcome criteria
• Six of 13 studies may have included – Neck or upper arm pain onlypp p y– Pain on palpation alone– Myofascial pain syndrome– Adhesive capsulitis
• One study may have identified persons with pathology, but without pain
Query impacton findings ?
Sensitivity Analysis
• Diagnostic inaccuracy – bias towards the null?
• Where an exposure is a risk factor for a disorder other than those of specific interestother than those of specific interest– Risk estimates may be augmented by the inclusion of
persons with competing diagnoses
• Exclusion of studies
Sensitivity Analysis
++ / +++Upper arm elevation
Sensitivity analysis
Main findingsExposure
+ / 0Psychosocial factors
0Other physical / mechanical
+Repetitive tasks
++Manual handling / force
.
.
.
Other Issues
• Sensitivity analysis
• Gender
• Prognosis
19
Gender Differences
Physical exposures
• Papers: n = 2
• Effect of similar magnitude in men and women– Working in a manual occupation– Working with hands above shoulder level– Working with hands away from body / behind trunk
Gender Differences
Psychosocial exposures
• Papers: n = 1
• Effect of similar magnitude in men and women– Work demands– Threat of being bullied or mentally abused
• Burnout– Men: Doubling in odds of symptoms (non-significant)– Women: Halving of odds of symptoms (non-significant)
Other Issues
• Sensitivity analysis
• Gender
• Prognosis
Prognosis
• Parallel identification and review of literature– Bibliographic databases– Outcome and exposure information– Additional key-words
Prognosis / disability / recovery / sickness absence / consequences• Prognosis / disability / recovery / sickness absence / consequences
• Papers: n = 3
• Conclusion– Insufficient evidence [0] to suggest any causal relationships– Favourable outcome in large proportion of patients– Duration of treatment varies between individuals
20
Summary
Summary
EvidenceExposure
++ / +++Working with arms in an elevated position *
++Manual handling / occupational force requirement
+Repetitive tasks (independent of force)
0Other physical / mechanical exposures
* Robust to exclusion of studies with potential diagnostic inaccuracy
*
Summary
EvidenceExposure
+Perceived (lack of) support at work
0Perceived occupational demands
0Perceived (lack of) control at work
0Other psychosocial factors
0Factors relating to prognosis
Limitations of Current Research
• Paucity of high quality prospective cohort studies
• Few studies presenting robust exposure-response data– Not possible to inform exposure standards– Not possible to identify ‘safe’ limits of exposure
• Insufficient evidence to be able to distinguish– Exposures that lead to pathological changes– Exposures that aggravate symptoms that originate from pre-
existing shoulder pathology
21
Acknowledgements
• University of Aberdeen– Dr Nirupa Pallawatte– Dr Ashraf El-Metwally– Dr Finlay Dick– Professor Gary Macfarlane
• SC-DSOEM– Dr Susanne Svendsen– Dr Johan Andersen– Dr Sigurd Mikkelsen
y– Professor David Reid • External Review
– Dr Alex Burdoff– Mr Jens Ivar Brox
Methods: Assessing Study Quality
High ScoreLow ScoreRatingCriteria
Cohort study; long follow-up
Cross-sectional study
Range: 0 – 3 ObjectiveStudy design
>1000 participants85% participation
22
Methods: Assessing Study Quality
High ScoreLow ScoreRatingCriteria
Adjustment for 4+ key confounders
No adjustment for key confounders
Range: 0 – 3 ObjectiveConfounding
Blinding; robust methodsNo blinding
Range: 0 – 2 SubjectiveBlinding
Objective / 2+ observers / video
Subjective assessment
Range: 0 – 3 Subjective
Exposure measurement
Exposures on quantitative scale
Dichotomous exposures
Range: 0 – 3 Objective
Exposure-response data
Full clinical examPoor quality measurementRange: 0 – 3 Subjective
Outcome measurement
Reviewer 2Reviewer 1
TITLESn = 651
Review of Titles
Reviewer 3(added n = 80)
Review abstractsn = 327
Discardn = 324
Agree to rejectn = 241
Agree to acceptn = 247
Disagreen = 163
Reviewer 2Reviewer 1
ABSTRACTSn = 327
Review of Abstracts
Reviewer 3(added n = 15)
Review full papersn = 112
Discardn = 215
Agree to rejectn = 178
Agree to acceptn = 97
Disagreen = 52
Reviewer 2Reviewer 1
FULL PAPERSn = 112
Review of Full Papers
Reviewer 3(added n = 1)
Includen = 13
Discardn = 99
Agree to rejectn = 78
Agree to acceptn = 12
Disagreen = 22
23
Results: Study Quality
• Maximum quality rating in all areas n = 0
• High quality n = 7– Maximum or maximum-1– At least five criteria
• Recent studies– Higher quality