Scientific basis of ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors

Armstrong, Tom J.; Burdorf, Alex; Descatha, Alexis; Farioli, Andrea; Graf, Maggie; Horie, Seichi; Marras, William S.; Potvin, Jim R.; Rempel, David; Spatari, Giovanna; Takala, Esa Pekka; Verbeek, Jos; Violante, Francesco Saverio

doi:10.5271/sjweh.3718

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While there is tremendous value in standards and guidelines as tools to foster innovation and as a mechanism to implement workplace injury prevention measures, there remains trepidation around using standards to their fullest potential. Standards and guidelines may be lacking in the following areas: evidence-based data (due to availability), full transparency (conflict of interest in development), scientifically supported methods (controlling for confounding factors, understanding combined and interactive effects), and sensitivity and specificity of threshold values for numerous potential effects [47]. However, when evidence-informed standards and guidelines are well-designed and implemented, their impact has been shown to potentially reduce workplace injuries [38,48,49] and have positive impacts on an organisation's safety, operational and economic performance [50].…”

Section: Prevention Measures That Can Be Taken In the Workplacementioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal health in the workplace

Crawford

Berkovic

Erwin

et al. 2020

Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Prevention Measures That Can Be Taken In the Workplacementioning

confidence: 99%

Musculoskeletal health in the workplace

Crawford

Berkovic

Erwin

et al. 2020

Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this review, we report on recent implementations of wearable sensors for quantitative instrumental-based biomechanical risk assessments in the prevention of WMSDs. Their use is desirable also in view of the concerns expressed within a recent article [ 206 ] regarding technical ISO standards on ergonomics and physical workloads.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wearable Monitoring Devices for Biomechanical Risk Assessment at Work: Current Status and Future Challenges—A Systematic Review

Ranavolo

Draicchio

Varrecchia

et al. 2018

IJERPH

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In order to reduce the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) several methods have been developed, accepted by the international literature and used in the workplace. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe recent implementations of wearable sensors for quantitative instrumental-based biomechanical risk assessments in prevention of WMSDs. Methods: Articles written until 7 May 2018 were selected from PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science using specific keywords. Results: Instrumental approaches based on inertial measurement units and sEMG sensors have been used for direct evaluations to classify lifting tasks into low and high risk categories. Wearable sensors have also been used for direct instrumental evaluations in handling of low loads at high frequency activities by using the local myoelectric manifestation of muscle fatigue estimation. In the field of the rating of standard methods, on-body wireless sensors network-based approaches for real-time ergonomic assessment in industrial manufacturing have been proposed. Conclusions: Few studies foresee the use of wearable technologies for biomechanical risk assessment although the requirement to obtain increasingly quantitative evaluations, the recent miniaturization process and the need to follow a constantly evolving manual handling scenario is prompting their use.

show abstract

“…We thank Drs. Colombini and Occhipinti for their personal reply to our Discussion Paper (1,2). We share the overall goal of preventing workplace injuries and welcome a discussion of the ISO process on workplace ergonomics standards; this was the primary aim of the Discussion Paper.…”

Section: Letter To the Editormentioning

confidence: 92%

Authors' response: Letter to the Editor concerning OCRA as preferred method in ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors

Armstrong

Burdorf²,

Descatha³

et al. 2018

Scand J Work Environ Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We thank Drs. Colombini and Occhipinti for their personal reply to our Discussion Paper (1, 2). We share the overall goal of preventing workplace injuries and welcome a discussion of the ISO process on workplace ergonomics standards; this was the primary aim of the Discussion Paper. We hope that other members of the relevant ISO working groups will also participate in the discussion. However, Drs. Colombini and Occipinti misinterpret our paper. Our aim was not to "addresses the scientific basis of ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors and more specifically the OCRA methodology". The purpose was to point out that "while the ISO process has value, it has also clear limitations when it comes to developing occupational health and safety standards that should be based on scientific principles". It is true that our paper discussed the OCRA method, but only as an example, in a single paragraph. We noted that the OCRA method was promoted as the preferred method by the ISO working group even though there were other risk assessment methods which, at the time (and currently), were at least as scientifically valid (3). The discovery that, while on the ISO working group, Drs. Colombini and Occipinti elevated the risk assessment method that they developed (OCRA) over the other methods, demonstrates one of several limitations of the ISO process, namely, the lack of attention to conflict of interest. Finally, we would like to draw attention to the note by Drs. Colombini and Occhipinti that "the ISO standards in question were actually developed by the working group, as mandated by ISO, over the period 2000‒2004". This long-elapsed time, without an update to the standard, should be a concern for all scientists given the large quantity of quality scientific literature published since then (eg, 3‒6). Fourteen years is well beyond what is recommended in the ISO guidelines. References 1. Colombini D, Occhipinti E. Scientific basis of the OCRA method for risk assessment of biomechanical overload of the upper limb, as preferred method in ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors. Scand J Work Environ Health ‒ online first. https://doi.org.10.5271/sjweh.3746 2. Armstrong T J, Burdorf I A, Descatha A, Farioli A, Graf M, Horie S, Marras W S, Potvin J R, Rempel D, Spatari G, Takala E P, Verbeek J, Violante FS. Scientific basis of ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors. Scand J Work Environ Health ‒ online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3718 3. Takala EP, Pehkonen I, Forsman M, Hansson GA, Mathiassen SE, Neumann WP, Sjøgaard G, Veiersted KB, Westgaard RH, Winkel J. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36:3-24. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.2876 4. Paulsen R, Gallu T, Gilkey D, Reiser R, Murgia L, Rosecrance J. The inter-rater reliability of Strain Index and OCRA Checklist task assessments in cheese processing. Applied Ergonomics. 2015; 51,199-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.04.019 5. Kapellusch JM, Gerr FE, Malloy EJ, Garg A, ...

show abstract

Scientific basis of ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors

Cited by 24 publications

References 15 publications

Musculoskeletal health in the workplace

Musculoskeletal health in the workplace

Wearable Monitoring Devices for Biomechanical Risk Assessment at Work: Current Status and Future Challenges—A Systematic Review

Authors' response: Letter to the Editor concerning OCRA as preferred method in ISO standards on biomechanical risk factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About