Optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.

Experts disagree about the optimal classification of upper limb disorders (ULDs). To explore whether differences in associations with occupational risk factors offer a basis for choosing between case definitions in aetiological research and surveillance, we analysed previously published research. El...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Palmer, K, Harris, E, Linaker, C, Cooper, C, Coggon, D
Format: Journal article
Language:English
Published: 2012
_version_ 1826282037879767040
author Palmer, K
Harris, E
Linaker, C
Cooper, C
Coggon, D
author_facet Palmer, K
Harris, E
Linaker, C
Cooper, C
Coggon, D
author_sort Palmer, K
collection OXFORD
description Experts disagree about the optimal classification of upper limb disorders (ULDs). To explore whether differences in associations with occupational risk factors offer a basis for choosing between case definitions in aetiological research and surveillance, we analysed previously published research. Eligible reports (those with estimates of relative risk (RR) for >1 case definition relative to identical exposures were identified from systematic reviews of ULD and occupation and by hand-searching five peer-review journals published between January 1990 and June 2010. We abstracted details by anatomical site of the case and exposure definitions employed and paired estimates of RR, for alternative case definitions with identical occupational exposures. Pairs of case definitions were typically nested, a stricter definition being a subset of a simpler version. Differences in RR between paired definitions were expressed as the ratio of RRs, using that for the simpler definition as the denominator. We found 21 reports, yielding 320 pairs of RRs (82, 75 and 163 respectively at the shoulder, elbow, and distal arm). Ratios of RRs were frequently ≤1 (46%), the median ratio overall and by anatomical site being close to unity. In only 2% of comparisons did ratios reach ≥4. We conclude that complex ULD case definitions (e.g. involving physical signs, more specific symptom patterns, and investigations) yield similar associations with occupational risk factors to those using simpler definitions. Thus, in population-based aetiological research and surveillance, simple case definitions should normally suffice. Data on risk factors can justifiably be pooled in meta-analyses, despite differences in case definition.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T00:37:50Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:82051179-2cf5-42da-96b2-f5ff02df8da1
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T00:37:50Z
publishDate 2012
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:82051179-2cf5-42da-96b2-f5ff02df8da12022-03-26T21:34:24ZOptimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:82051179-2cf5-42da-96b2-f5ff02df8da1EnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2012Palmer, KHarris, ELinaker, CCooper, CCoggon, DExperts disagree about the optimal classification of upper limb disorders (ULDs). To explore whether differences in associations with occupational risk factors offer a basis for choosing between case definitions in aetiological research and surveillance, we analysed previously published research. Eligible reports (those with estimates of relative risk (RR) for >1 case definition relative to identical exposures were identified from systematic reviews of ULD and occupation and by hand-searching five peer-review journals published between January 1990 and June 2010. We abstracted details by anatomical site of the case and exposure definitions employed and paired estimates of RR, for alternative case definitions with identical occupational exposures. Pairs of case definitions were typically nested, a stricter definition being a subset of a simpler version. Differences in RR between paired definitions were expressed as the ratio of RRs, using that for the simpler definition as the denominator. We found 21 reports, yielding 320 pairs of RRs (82, 75 and 163 respectively at the shoulder, elbow, and distal arm). Ratios of RRs were frequently ≤1 (46%), the median ratio overall and by anatomical site being close to unity. In only 2% of comparisons did ratios reach ≥4. We conclude that complex ULD case definitions (e.g. involving physical signs, more specific symptom patterns, and investigations) yield similar associations with occupational risk factors to those using simpler definitions. Thus, in population-based aetiological research and surveillance, simple case definitions should normally suffice. Data on risk factors can justifiably be pooled in meta-analyses, despite differences in case definition.
spellingShingle Palmer, K
Harris, E
Linaker, C
Cooper, C
Coggon, D
Optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.
title Optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.
title_full Optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.
title_fullStr Optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.
title_full_unstemmed Optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.
title_short Optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention: a review.
title_sort optimising case definitions of upper limb disorder for aetiological research and prevention a review
work_keys_str_mv AT palmerk optimisingcasedefinitionsofupperlimbdisorderforaetiologicalresearchandpreventionareview
AT harrise optimisingcasedefinitionsofupperlimbdisorderforaetiologicalresearchandpreventionareview
AT linakerc optimisingcasedefinitionsofupperlimbdisorderforaetiologicalresearchandpreventionareview
AT cooperc optimisingcasedefinitionsofupperlimbdisorderforaetiologicalresearchandpreventionareview
AT coggond optimisingcasedefinitionsofupperlimbdisorderforaetiologicalresearchandpreventionareview