2010). Therefore, there appears to be no publication bias regarding the most described performance-based measure. To Tariquidar prevent publication bias resulting in a higher level of evidence due to studies of less than good quality, the evidence synthesis was formulated in such a way that regardless of the number of studies of moderate or poor quality, the qualification remained “limited”. This stringent evidence synthesis was also used to do justice to the heterogeneity of the included studies regarding not only the different performance-based tests and outcome measures for work

participation but also for differences regarding chronic and non-chronic patients with MSDs in different body regions, Selleck AZD6738 rehabilitation and occupational setting, and treatment and non-treatment studies. Performance-based tests can be performed in patients with severe MSDs (pain intensity 7 out of 10 or higher). Patients with severe MSDs were indeed included in the studies. Of course, regardless of pain intensity, if a person is not willing to participate, then the reliability and the validity of the

results should be reconsidered. In the included studies, participants were able to perform the tests and no comments were made about unwillingness to perform a test, In test practice, however, patients’ willingness BIBW2992 mw to perform to full capacity is seldom a matter of 100 or 0% but almost always somewhere in between. None of the studies reported to have controlled for level of effort. When looking at these tests

as measures of behavior, it is plausible that physically submaximal effort has occurred, which is consistent with the definition of FCE and also observed in a systematic review by van Abbema et al. (2011). Performance-based measures and work participation The use of performance-based measures to guide decisions on work participation (pre- and periodic work screens, return-to-work, and disability Anacetrapib claim assessments) is still under debate, at least in the Netherlands (Wind et al. 2006). This is not only due to the time-consuming nature of some of these assessments but also to its perceived limited evidence for predictive value regarding work participation. Regarding the time-consuming nature, this study also showed that a number of tests were predictive of work participation: lifting tests (Gross et al. 2004; Gross and Battié 2005, 2006; Gouttebarge et al. 2009a; Hazard et al. 1991; Matheson et al. 2002; Strand et al. 2001; Vowles et al. 2004), a 3-min step test and a lifting test (Bachman et al. 2003; Kool et al. 2002), a short-form FCE consisting of tests specific for the region of complaints (Gross and Battié 2006; Branton et al. 2010), and a trunk strength test (Mayer et al. 1986). A performance-based lifting test was most often used and appeared to be predictive of work participation in 13 of these 14 studies—especially a lifting test from floor-to-waist level in patients with chronic low back pain.