Methodological considerations for the calculation of cumulative compression exposure of the lumbar spine: A sensitivity analysis on joint model and time standardization approaches
Cumulative lumbar spine loading has attracted much attention as a factor associated with the development of low back pain. While evidence supports cumulative loading to be a plausible mechanism in explaining several workplace injuries, research establishing a threshold limit value (TLV) for cumulati...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ergonomics 2007-09, Vol.50 (9), p.1365-1376 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1376 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 1365 |
container_title | Ergonomics |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Fischer, S. L. Albert, W. J. McClellan, A. J. Callaghan, J. P. |
description | Cumulative lumbar spine loading has attracted much attention as a factor associated with the development of low back pain. While evidence supports cumulative loading to be a plausible mechanism in explaining several workplace injuries, research establishing a threshold limit value (TLV) for cumulative spine loading has been challenging. The lack of a TLV or even a trend towards harmful cumulative load values may suggest that methodological considerations are greatly influencing the results. This paper examines the impact of different joint models (single muscle equivalent, an electromyography-based third order polynomial, a modified version of the polynomial and a hybrid approach) to determine cumulative spine compression, as well as the importance of time standardization in the calculation of a daily cumulative loading dose. Findings demonstrated that the polynomial predicted cumulative compression values were 43-53% higher than those with all other models tested and the single muscle equivalent predicted loads 18% higher than loads predicted using a modified polynomial. Profound differences between modelling approaches suggest that caution should be taken when selecting a muscle model to determine cumulative spine compressive loading. Time standardized cumulative compression values were found to be 28.3% greater than non-standardized estimates, illustrating the importance of selecting a standard time frame in the calculation of cumulative spine compression. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/00140130701344042 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_17654030</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>19548293</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-f95ad64ae471b2afc559b085b93deb8cdcc29490c4adc11616741498f0b0bb4b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhS1ERS-FB2CDvIFdqB3bSYzYVBU_lVqxgXXkv3BdOXHwOKWX1-IFcXov6qIS3dgen_PNjHQQekXJO0o6ckoI5YQy0paDc8LrJ2hDWdNUouPtU7RZ9apo8hg9B7guJaOyfoaOadsIThjZoD9XLm-jjSH-8EYFbOIE3rqksi8vPMSE89bhIpkl3H3iOGCzjHfVTVHiOCcHsCrudo6wJLdaVioso1YJw-wn9x6fYXCleaF83mE1qbADD7hw19FPGY_RulD-Lc5-dBhyeapk_e_9WDXPKSqzdfACHQ0qgHt5uE_Q908fv51_qS6_fr44P7usDOddrgYplG24crylulaDEUJq0gktmXW6M9aYWnJJDFfWUNrQpuWUy24gmmjNNTtBb_d9y-Cfi4Pcjx6MC0FNLi7QM0JaIRh_1Eil4F0tWTHSvdGkCJDc0M_Jjyrtekr6NdL-QaSFeX1ovujR2XvikGExvDkYFJSchqQm4-He18mWCbpu-WHv81OJdVS_Ygq2z2oXYvoHsf_t0T6KP6D6fJvZX8Rv00o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19548293</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Methodological considerations for the calculation of cumulative compression exposure of the lumbar spine: A sensitivity analysis on joint model and time standardization approaches</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles)</source><creator>Fischer, S. L. ; Albert, W. J. ; McClellan, A. J. ; Callaghan, J. P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fischer, S. L. ; Albert, W. J. ; McClellan, A. J. ; Callaghan, J. P.</creatorcontrib><description>Cumulative lumbar spine loading has attracted much attention as a factor associated with the development of low back pain. While evidence supports cumulative loading to be a plausible mechanism in explaining several workplace injuries, research establishing a threshold limit value (TLV) for cumulative spine loading has been challenging. The lack of a TLV or even a trend towards harmful cumulative load values may suggest that methodological considerations are greatly influencing the results. This paper examines the impact of different joint models (single muscle equivalent, an electromyography-based third order polynomial, a modified version of the polynomial and a hybrid approach) to determine cumulative spine compression, as well as the importance of time standardization in the calculation of a daily cumulative loading dose. Findings demonstrated that the polynomial predicted cumulative compression values were 43-53% higher than those with all other models tested and the single muscle equivalent predicted loads 18% higher than loads predicted using a modified polynomial. Profound differences between modelling approaches suggest that caution should be taken when selecting a muscle model to determine cumulative spine compressive loading. Time standardized cumulative compression values were found to be 28.3% greater than non-standardized estimates, illustrating the importance of selecting a standard time frame in the calculation of cumulative spine compression.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0014-0139</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1366-5847</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/00140130701344042</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17654030</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ERGOAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Adult ; Algorithms ; Applied physiology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biomechanical modelling ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Canada ; Cumulative loading ; Diseases of the osteoarticular system ; Diseases of the spine ; Ergonomics - methods ; Ergonomics - statistics & numerical data ; Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology ; Female ; Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology ; Humans ; Low Back Pain ; Lumbosacral Region ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Spinal Cord Compression - physiopathology ; Threshold Limit Values ; Unplanned rest</subject><ispartof>Ergonomics, 2007-09, Vol.50 (9), p.1365-1376</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2007</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-f95ad64ae471b2afc559b085b93deb8cdcc29490c4adc11616741498f0b0bb4b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-f95ad64ae471b2afc559b085b93deb8cdcc29490c4adc11616741498f0b0bb4b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00140130701344042$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00140130701344042$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27911,27912,59632,60421</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18973514$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17654030$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fischer, S. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albert, W. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClellan, A. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Callaghan, J. P.</creatorcontrib><title>Methodological considerations for the calculation of cumulative compression exposure of the lumbar spine: A sensitivity analysis on joint model and time standardization approaches</title><title>Ergonomics</title><addtitle>Ergonomics</addtitle><description>Cumulative lumbar spine loading has attracted much attention as a factor associated with the development of low back pain. While evidence supports cumulative loading to be a plausible mechanism in explaining several workplace injuries, research establishing a threshold limit value (TLV) for cumulative spine loading has been challenging. The lack of a TLV or even a trend towards harmful cumulative load values may suggest that methodological considerations are greatly influencing the results. This paper examines the impact of different joint models (single muscle equivalent, an electromyography-based third order polynomial, a modified version of the polynomial and a hybrid approach) to determine cumulative spine compression, as well as the importance of time standardization in the calculation of a daily cumulative loading dose. Findings demonstrated that the polynomial predicted cumulative compression values were 43-53% higher than those with all other models tested and the single muscle equivalent predicted loads 18% higher than loads predicted using a modified polynomial. Profound differences between modelling approaches suggest that caution should be taken when selecting a muscle model to determine cumulative spine compressive loading. Time standardized cumulative compression values were found to be 28.3% greater than non-standardized estimates, illustrating the importance of selecting a standard time frame in the calculation of cumulative spine compression.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Applied physiology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanical modelling</subject><subject>Biomechanical Phenomena</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Cumulative loading</subject><subject>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</subject><subject>Diseases of the spine</subject><subject>Ergonomics - methods</subject><subject>Ergonomics - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Low Back Pain</subject><subject>Lumbosacral Region</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Spinal Cord Compression - physiopathology</subject><subject>Threshold Limit Values</subject><subject>Unplanned rest</subject><issn>0014-0139</issn><issn>1366-5847</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc1u1TAQhS1ERS-FB2CDvIFdqB3bSYzYVBU_lVqxgXXkv3BdOXHwOKWX1-IFcXov6qIS3dgen_PNjHQQekXJO0o6ckoI5YQy0paDc8LrJ2hDWdNUouPtU7RZ9apo8hg9B7guJaOyfoaOadsIThjZoD9XLm-jjSH-8EYFbOIE3rqksi8vPMSE89bhIpkl3H3iOGCzjHfVTVHiOCcHsCrudo6wJLdaVioso1YJw-wn9x6fYXCleaF83mE1qbADD7hw19FPGY_RulD-Lc5-dBhyeapk_e_9WDXPKSqzdfACHQ0qgHt5uE_Q908fv51_qS6_fr44P7usDOddrgYplG24crylulaDEUJq0gktmXW6M9aYWnJJDFfWUNrQpuWUy24gmmjNNTtBb_d9y-Cfi4Pcjx6MC0FNLi7QM0JaIRh_1Eil4F0tWTHSvdGkCJDc0M_Jjyrtekr6NdL-QaSFeX1ovujR2XvikGExvDkYFJSchqQm4-He18mWCbpu-WHv81OJdVS_Ygq2z2oXYvoHsf_t0T6KP6D6fJvZX8Rv00o</recordid><startdate>200709</startdate><enddate>200709</enddate><creator>Fischer, S. L.</creator><creator>Albert, W. J.</creator><creator>McClellan, A. J.</creator><creator>Callaghan, J. P.</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200709</creationdate><title>Methodological considerations for the calculation of cumulative compression exposure of the lumbar spine: A sensitivity analysis on joint model and time standardization approaches</title><author>Fischer, S. L. ; Albert, W. J. ; McClellan, A. J. ; Callaghan, J. P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c448t-f95ad64ae471b2afc559b085b93deb8cdcc29490c4adc11616741498f0b0bb4b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Applied physiology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanical modelling</topic><topic>Biomechanical Phenomena</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Cumulative loading</topic><topic>Diseases of the osteoarticular system</topic><topic>Diseases of the spine</topic><topic>Ergonomics - methods</topic><topic>Ergonomics - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Low Back Pain</topic><topic>Lumbosacral Region</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Spinal Cord Compression - physiopathology</topic><topic>Threshold Limit Values</topic><topic>Unplanned rest</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fischer, S. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albert, W. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClellan, A. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Callaghan, J. P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Ergonomics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fischer, S. L.</au><au>Albert, W. J.</au><au>McClellan, A. J.</au><au>Callaghan, J. P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Methodological considerations for the calculation of cumulative compression exposure of the lumbar spine: A sensitivity analysis on joint model and time standardization approaches</atitle><jtitle>Ergonomics</jtitle><addtitle>Ergonomics</addtitle><date>2007-09</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1365</spage><epage>1376</epage><pages>1365-1376</pages><issn>0014-0139</issn><eissn>1366-5847</eissn><coden>ERGOAX</coden><abstract>Cumulative lumbar spine loading has attracted much attention as a factor associated with the development of low back pain. While evidence supports cumulative loading to be a plausible mechanism in explaining several workplace injuries, research establishing a threshold limit value (TLV) for cumulative spine loading has been challenging. The lack of a TLV or even a trend towards harmful cumulative load values may suggest that methodological considerations are greatly influencing the results. This paper examines the impact of different joint models (single muscle equivalent, an electromyography-based third order polynomial, a modified version of the polynomial and a hybrid approach) to determine cumulative spine compression, as well as the importance of time standardization in the calculation of a daily cumulative loading dose. Findings demonstrated that the polynomial predicted cumulative compression values were 43-53% higher than those with all other models tested and the single muscle equivalent predicted loads 18% higher than loads predicted using a modified polynomial. Profound differences between modelling approaches suggest that caution should be taken when selecting a muscle model to determine cumulative spine compressive loading. Time standardized cumulative compression values were found to be 28.3% greater than non-standardized estimates, illustrating the importance of selecting a standard time frame in the calculation of cumulative spine compression.</abstract><cop>London</cop><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><pmid>17654030</pmid><doi>10.1080/00140130701344042</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0014-0139 |
ispartof | Ergonomics, 2007-09, Vol.50 (9), p.1365-1376 |
issn | 0014-0139 1366-5847 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmed_primary_17654030 |
source | MEDLINE; Taylor & Francis:Master (3349 titles) |
subjects | Adult Algorithms Applied physiology Biological and medical sciences Biomechanical modelling Biomechanical Phenomena Canada Cumulative loading Diseases of the osteoarticular system Diseases of the spine Ergonomics - methods Ergonomics - statistics & numerical data Ergonomics. Work place. Occupational physiology Female Human physiology applied to population studies and life conditions. Human ecophysiology Humans Low Back Pain Lumbosacral Region Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Spinal Cord Compression - physiopathology Threshold Limit Values Unplanned rest |
title | Methodological considerations for the calculation of cumulative compression exposure of the lumbar spine: A sensitivity analysis on joint model and time standardization approaches |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T00%3A53%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Methodological%20considerations%20for%20the%20calculation%20of%20cumulative%20compression%20exposure%20of%20the%20lumbar%20spine:%20A%20sensitivity%20analysis%20on%20joint%20model%20and%20time%20standardization%20approaches&rft.jtitle=Ergonomics&rft.au=Fischer,%20S.%20L.&rft.date=2007-09&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1365&rft.epage=1376&rft.pages=1365-1376&rft.issn=0014-0139&rft.eissn=1366-5847&rft.coden=ERGOAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/00140130701344042&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E19548293%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19548293&rft_id=info:pmid/17654030&rfr_iscdi=true |