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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ergonomics 2007-09, Vol.50 (9), p.1365-1376
Hauptverfasser: Fischer, S. L., Albert, W. J., McClellan, A. J., Callaghan, J. P.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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