Establishing a causal relationship between factors at work and disease is difficult for occupational physicians and researchers. This paper seeks to provide arguments for the judgement of evidence of causality in observational studies that relate work factors to disease. I derived criteria for the judgement of evidence of causality from the following sources: the criteria list of Hill, the approach by Rothman, the methods used by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and methods used by epidemiologists. The criteria are applied to two cases of putative occupational diseases; breast cancer caused by shift work and aerotoxic syndrome. Only three of the Hill criteria can be applied to an actual study. Rothman stresses the importance of confounding and alternative explanations than the putative cause. IARC closely follows Hill, but they also incorporate other than epidemiological evidence. Applied to shift work and breast cancer, these results have found moderate evidence for a causal relationship, but applied to the aerotoxic syndrome, there is an absence of evidence of causality. There are no ready to use algorithms for judgement of evidence of causality. Criteria from different sources lead to similar results and can make a conclusion of causality more or less likely.
Breast Neoplasms ; Epidemiologic Studies ; International Agencies ; Occupational Diseases ; Occupational Medicine ; Polymethacrylic Acids

There is still a considerable burden of occupational diseases and injuries in the world. It is not well known which interventions can effectively reduce the exposures at work that cause this burden. The objective of this article is to summarize evidence from systematic reviews of interventions to prevent occupational diseases and injuries. We included systematic reviews of interventions to reduce the incidence of work-related cancer, dust-related diseases, occupational asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, noiseinduced hearing loss, back pain, and occupational injuries. We searched Medline and Embase with predefined search strategies to locate systematic reviews of these interventions. We found 23 systematic reviews of which the results are also applicable to low- and middle income countries. Effective measures to reduce exposure leading to work-related cancer, dust-related diseases, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, noise, and injuries are available. However, better implementation of these measures is needed. Regulation, enforcement of regulation, and incentives for employers are effective interventions to achieve this goal. There is evidence that feedback and rewards for workers help in reducing occupational injuries. There is no evidence in many studies that back pain can be prevented. Personal protective equipment technically has the potential to reduce exposure but this is difficult to put into effect. There is no evidence in the studies regarding the effectiveness of education and training, preventive drugs, or health examinations. There is evidence that the implementation of technical measures enforced by regulation can prevent occupational diseases and injuries. For other interventions such as education or health examinations, there is no evidence that supports their effectiveness. More systematic reviews are needed in the area of injury prevention.
Asthma ; Back Pain ; Education ; Hearing Loss ; Humans ; Incidence ; Clinical Trial ; Motivation ; Noise ; Occupational Diseases ; Occupational Health* ; Occupational Injuries ; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive ; Reward

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the knee is considered to be related to knee straining activities at work. The objective of this review is to assess the exposure dose-response relation between kneeling or squatting, lifting, and climbing stairs at work, and knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: We included cohort and case–control studies. For each study that reported enough data, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) per 5,000 hours of cumulative kneeling and per 100,000 kg of cumulative lifting. We pooled these incremental ORs in a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 15 studies (2 cohort and 13 case–control studies) of which nine assessed risks in more than two exposure categories. We considered all but one study at high risk of bias. The incremental OR per 5,000 hours of kneeling was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.17–1.35, 5 studies, moderate quality evidence) for a log-linear exposure dose-response model. For lifting, there was no exposure dose-response per 100,000 kg of lifetime lifting (OR 1.00, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.01). For climbing, an exposure dose-response could not be calculated. CONCLUSION: There is moderate quality evidence that longer cumulative exposure to kneeling or squatting at work leads to a higher risk of osteoarthritis of the knee. For other exposure, there was no exposure dose-response or there were insufficient data to establish this. More reliable exposure measurements would increase the quality of the evidence.
Bias (Epidemiology) ; Cohort Studies ; Knee* ; Lifting ; Occupational Diseases ; Occupational Exposure* ; Odds Ratio ; Osteoarthritis* ; Osteoarthritis, Knee

We developed an evidence-based practice guideline to support occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals in assessing the risk due to lifting and in selecting effective preventive measures for low back pain (LBP) in the Netherlands. The guideline was developed at the request of the Dutch government by a project team of experts and OSH professionals in lifting and work-related LBP. The recommendations for risk assessment were based on the quality of instruments to assess the risk on LBP due to lifting. Recommendations for interventions were based on a systematic review of the effects of worker- and work directed interventions to reduce back load due to lifting. The quality of the evidence was rated as strong (A), moderate (B), limited (C) or based on consensus (D). Finally, eight experts and twenty-four OSH professionals commented on and evaluated the content and the feasibility of the preliminary guideline. For risk assessment we recommend loads heavier than 25 kg always to be considered a risk for LBP while loads less than 3 kg do not pose a risk. For loads between 3-25 kg, risk assessment shall be performed using the Manual handling Assessment Charts (MAC)-Tool or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation. Effective work oriented interventions are patient lifting devices (Level A) and lifting devices for goods (Level C), optimizing working height (Level A) and reducing load mass (Level C). Ineffective work oriented preventive measures are regulations to ban lifting without proper alternatives (Level D). We do not recommend worker-oriented interventions but consider personal lift assist devices as promising (Level C). Ineffective worker-oriented preventive measures are training in lifting technique (Level A), use of back-belts (Level A) and pre-employment medical examinations (Level A). This multidisciplinary evidence-based practice guideline gives clear criteria whether an employee is at risk for LBP while lifting and provides an easy-reference for (in)effective risk reduction measures based on scientific evidence, experience, and consensus among OSH experts and practitioners.
Back Pain ; Consensus ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Humans ; Lifting* ; Low Back Pain* ; Moving and Lifting Patients ; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (U.S.) ; Netherlands ; Occupational Health ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Reduction Behavior ; Social Control, Formal