Corral Meritxell, Vargas-Prada Sergio, Gil Josep Maria, Serra Consol
Centro de Investigación en Salud Laboral (CiSAL), Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, España, Spain.
Arch Prev Riesgos Labor. 2015 Apr-Jun;18(2):72-80. doi: 10.12961/aprl.2015.18.2.04.
To identify existing return-to-work (RTW) guidelines following a sickness absence (SA) due to musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) and evaluate their methodological quality.
We performed a systematic search for RTW guideliness written in English, Spanish and Catalan, that included total or partial information on MSD. The identified guidelines were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively by seven experts using the validated AGREE method. Standardized scores for each domain were calculated for each of the guidelines, as well as the median of the experts scores for each of the items. In addition, each expert made a subjective judgment on the quality of the selected guidelines.
Thirty-two guidelines were identified. From these, 6 (3 of which were MSD-specific) were selected for an evaluation of their methodological quality. Only two, the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG) and the Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders Guide & Tools (WRGT) were felt to be suitable for use without further methodological modifications. In general, all of the guidelines properly define their objectives and target audience, and the RTW options are presented in a clear and precise way. However, all guides but one (ODG) have limitations in the criteria for selection of scientific evidence, and the potential conflicts of interest are not stated.
Only two guides of high methodological quality were identified. However, an evidence-based evaluation of the quality of their recommendations is recommended prior to their use in professional practice.
识别因肌肉骨骼疾病(MSD)导致病假(SA)后的现有重返工作岗位(RTW)指南,并评估其方法学质量。
我们对以英语、西班牙语和加泰罗尼亚语撰写的RTW指南进行了系统检索,这些指南包含了关于MSD的全部或部分信息。由七位专家使用经过验证的AGREE方法对确定的指南进行定性和定量评估。计算每个指南在每个领域的标准化分数,以及每个项目的专家分数中位数。此外,每位专家对所选指南的质量进行了主观判断。
确定了32项指南。从中选择了6项(其中3项是特定于MSD的)对其方法学质量进行评估。只有两项,即官方残疾指南(ODG)和工作相关肌肉骨骼疾病指南与工具(WRGT),被认为无需进一步的方法学修改即可使用。总体而言,所有指南都正确定义了其目标和目标受众,并且以清晰准确的方式呈现了RTW选项。然而,除了一项指南(ODG)之外,所有指南在科学证据选择标准方面都存在局限性,并且未说明潜在的利益冲突。
仅确定了两项方法学质量高的指南。然而,在将其用于专业实践之前,建议对其建议的质量进行基于证据的评估。