Systematic ReviewTreatment: Exercise & MovementSystematic Reviews & Meta-analysesClinical Guidelines & Best PracticesClinical RelevanceDOI
4 min read
Jump to:

Patient-friendly summary

If you read nothing else

A review of 61 workplace studies found that doing a structured strength-training exercise programme at work is the best-supported way to help prevent and ease upper-limb pain, with stretching, forearm supports and mouse-use reminders showing more modest promise.

Bottom line

Workplace-based resistance (strength) training has strong evidence to help prevent and manage upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders and symptoms; stretching, forearm supports and mouse-use feedback have moderate supporting evidence, while workstation adjustment alone, EMG biofeedback and stress management training showed no clear benefit.

Moderate evidence

Published

2016
10 years ago
Older study

Evidence hierarchy

Meta-analysis
Systematic Review ◀ this study
RCT
Cohort
Case-Control
Case Report
Expert Opinion

Study participants

61 studies (26 in this update plus 35 from the original review)Not reportedNot reported

Workers in real workplace settings across multiple sectors and 11 countries in the update; roughly 60% of update studies were office-based

Full research — for clinicians and curious readers

Study Summary

This systematic review updated an earlier review of workplace-based interventions to prevent and manage upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (UEMSD) and symptoms. Searching six databases (2008-April 2013) yielded 9909 references; 26 high- and medium-quality studies from the update were combined with 35 from the original review (61 studies total) across 30 intervention categories. The authors found strong evidence that workplace-based resistance training exercise programmes can help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms, plus moderate evidence of benefit for stretching programmes, mouse-use vibration feedback, and forearm supports. They also found moderate evidence of no effect for EMG biofeedback, job stress management training, and office workstation adjustment alone.

78/100
Evidence StrengthStrong
Study Quality
Sample Size
Replication

Key Findings

Strong evidence for workplace resistance trainingHigh

Seven studies (four high-quality, three medium-quality) reported a positive effect of resistance exercise (such as dumbbell or kettlebell exercises) on UEMSD outcomes, reaching a strong level of evidence and the recommendation to implement workplace-based resistance training to help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms.

Moderate evidence of benefit for three other interventionsMedium

Forearm supports (two high-quality, one medium-quality study), vibration feedback about static mouse use (two high-quality, one medium-quality study), and stretching exercise programmes (one high-quality, five medium-quality studies) each showed a moderate level of evidence for a positive effect, leading to the message to consider implementing them if applicable to the work context.

Moderate evidence of no effect for three interventionsMedium

EMG biofeedback (two high-quality, three medium-quality studies), job stress management training (two high-quality studies), and office workstation adjustment alone (one high-quality, three medium-quality studies) had a moderate level of evidence of no effect on UEMSD outcomes, leading to the message to seek alternatives based on OHS experience/knowledge.

No interventions caused harmMedium

Across all 61 studies there were no negative effects reported (no intervention increased symptoms or lost-time claims). The most common UEMSD outcome reported was symptoms.

Most intervention categories had insufficient evidenceMedium

The remaining 23 of the 30 intervention categories had too few high-quality studies or conflicting evidence, resulting in the message that there is not enough scientific evidence to guide current policies or practices; the authors note this does not mean those interventions are ineffective.

Study Methodology
Study Design
Systematic review with an adapted best evidence synthesis (no meta-analysis / no pooled effect estimate, due to heterogeneity in outcomes, designs and reported data)
Sample Size
61 studies total (26 from this update plus 35 from the original review); the update screened 9909 references, yielding 38 relevant articles describing 30 unique studies, of which 26 high/medium-quality studies were used
Duration
Literature search covered January 2008 to April 2013 inclusive (this update); intervention/follow-up durations within included studies not reported here
Population
Workers in workplace settings across multiple sectors and countries; update studies came from the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Italy, USA, India, Canada, Brazil, Malaysia, Sweden and Israel, with about 60% (16 of 26) being office-based
Outcome Measures
Upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms · Sickness absence · Disability · Diagnosed disorders · Physical function · Methodological quality score (weighted sum of 16 criteria, max 41; high ≥85%, medium 50-85%, low <50%) · Level of evidence (strong/moderate/limited) via best evidence synthesis

Strengths

  • Combined newer evidence with the original review for a larger evidence base of 61 studies across 30 intervention categories
  • Transparent best evidence synthesis with clearly defined, pre-specified criteria for grading the level of evidence
  • Iterative OHS stakeholder engagement throughout the review to ensure a relevant question, comprehensive search terms and practical, usable messages
  • Data extraction and synthesis restricted to high- and medium-quality studies, with paired independent reviewers and consensus processes to reduce bias
  • Included many studies reporting no effect, suggesting publication bias was not a major problem in the synthesis

Limitations

  • No meta-analysis or pooled effect estimate due to substantial heterogeneity in interventions, contexts and study designs
  • Best evidence synthesis approach has been criticised in the literature
  • An intervention was classified as having a positive effect if any single outcome was positive (a non-conservative rule that could overstate benefit)
  • Non-English references were excluded from screening
  • Publication bias could not be formally ruled out
  • Most evidence comes from office-based settings, limiting generalisability to other work environments

Key Takeaways for Patients

What This Means for You

  1. 01If your job involves upper-limb strain, a structured strength-training (resistance) exercise programme done at work has the strongest evidence to help prevent and ease arm, neck and hand symptoms.
  2. 02Stretching programmes, forearm supports at the workstation, and feedback that reminds you not to grip the mouse statically may help, though the evidence is more moderate.
  3. 03Adjusting an office workstation on its own, EMG biofeedback, and job stress management training showed no clear benefit for upper extremity symptoms in this review.
  4. 04No intervention studied made symptoms worse, but for most approaches there is simply not enough high-quality evidence yet to say whether they work.

Read the Full Paper

Access the complete peer-reviewed study from Occupational and Environmental Medicine

View Full Study

Related Research

●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Needle Electrolysis (PNE) and Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation (IMES) in the Management of Myofascial Pain Syndrome and Tendinopathies: A Systematic Review

Trybulski et al.·Journal of Clinical Medicine·2026

This systematic review found that PNE and IMES may improve pain and function in myofascial pain syndrome and tendinopathies, but evidence quality was limited by high risk of bias. Both techniques appear safe with only minor, self-limiting adverse events.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkSystematic Review

Dry Needling in Sports and Sport Recovery: A Systematic Review with an Evidence Gap Map

Kużdżał et al.·Sports Medicine·2025

This systematic review of 24 studies found dry needling effectively reduces pain in injured athletes but shows mixed results for performance enhancement in healthy athletes. Significant research gaps exist for elite athletes and long-term effects.

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkNarrative Review

Myofascial Pain Syndrome: An Update on Clinical Characteristics, Etiopathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Steen et al.·Muscle & Nerve·2025

This comprehensive narrative review synthesizes current evidence on myofascial pain syndrome, finding sufficient support only for local anesthetic injections while highlighting that many common treatments lack adequate evidence.

Clinical Guidelines & Best PracticesRead →
●●●●● LandmarkMeta-analysis

Comparative effectiveness of noninvasive therapeutic interventions for myofascial pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Liu et al.·International Journal of Surgery·2024

Network meta-analysis of 40 RCTs found manual therapy, laser therapy, and extracorporeal shock wave therapy most effective for reducing pain and disability in myofascial pain syndrome. These three treatments showed benefits across pain intensity, pressure pain threshold, and functional outcomes comp

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analysesRead →