2. The range of the quality score was 10–20 (maximum 23) with a mean

of 14.6 ± 2.6 and a median of 15. Of the studies, 11 had high quality (scores of 16 or higher), including 8 of 13 studies on musculoskeletal disorders; 15 had moderate quality (scores of 12–15), including 6 of 8 studies on skin disorders; and 6 had low quality (scores of 10 or 11). Fig. 2 Methodological quality graph: Review authors’ judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies Important reasons for lower study quality were a small sample size, low response rate, no control group, long interval between self-report TNF-alpha inhibitor and expert assessment, and lack of blinding to the outcomes of self-report while performing clinical examination or testing. Characteristics of included studies Additional Table 5 summarizes the main features of the 32 included studies, grouped according to the health condition measured: the measure/method for self-report, whether the participant was specifically asked questions on a possible relation between health impairment and work, the reference standard, the description and size of the study sample, and our quality assessment of the study. Table 5 Characteristics of included studies PRI-724 in vivo   Reference Self-report measure WR Reference mTOR inhibition standard Population description and number of participants Study quality Musculoskeletal disorders 1 Åkesson

et al. (1999) NMQ 7 d/12 mo; No Examination on the same day measuring clinical findings and diagnoses Sweden: 90 female dental personnel and 30 controls (medical nurses) 20, High Present pain ratings on scale 2 Bjorksten et al. (1999) NMQ-Modified; MycoClean Mycoplasma Removal Kit No Examination on the same day by physiotherapist following a structured schedule Sweden: 171 unskilled female workers in monotonous work in metal-working or food-processing industry 16, High Current pain rating on VAS scale; Body map pain drawings 3 Descatha et al. (2007) RtS NMQ-Upper Extremities No Standardized clinical examination. Positive if (1) diagnosis “proved” during clinical examination,

(2) diagnosis “proved” before clinical examination (e.g., previous diagnosis by a specialist, and (3) suspected diagnosis (not all of the criteria were met in clinical examination) France: “Repetitive task” survey (RtS) 1,757 workers in 1993–1994 and 598 workers in 1996–1997 17, High 4 Descatha et al. (2007) PdLS NMQ-Upper Extremities No Standardized clinical examination, using an international protocol for the evaluation of work-related upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders (SALTSA) “Pays de Loire” survey (PdLS) 2,685 workers in 2002–2003. 17, High 5 Juul-Kristensen et al. (2006) NMQ-Upper Extremities-Modified No Physiotherapist and physician performed the clinical examination and five physical function tests, all according to a standardized protocol Denmark: 101 female computer users (42 cases, 61 controls) 16, High 6 Kaergaard et al.