A systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss control ...

Table 4: Best evidence synthesis guidelinesLevel of Minimum Minimum Consistencyevidence quality quantityStrong High(>85%)>=3studiesAll high quality studies convergeon the same findings.Moderate Medium(50-84%)>=2studiesMajority of medium qualitystudies converge on the samefindings.Mixed Medium(50-84%)>=2studiesMedium and better qualitystudies have inconsistentfindings.Partial Low >=2 Majority of low quality studies(0-49%) studies converge on the same findings.Insufficient The above criteria are not met.In order to apply the best evidence guidelines uniformly some decisions wereused in the systematic review:• If a reviewed study did not have the primary outcome as an injury,illness or workers' compensation claim/cost but data was reported inany of these areas, the evidence was included in the synthesis.• Values were abstracted from figures (e.g. graphs, tables) wherespecific data was not reported.• When multiple findings were reported, we examined whether multiplecomparisons were conducted appropriately. If not, the results werereviewed by the team and consensus was reached.• Pain and discomfort were classified as injuries, and comfort andsatisfaction were not.• Medical interventions were not considered an IPC.• Some interventions were considered “programs” (e.g. return-to-work,disability management) and the reported effects were considered as anindication of effectiveness of the program rather than the effectivenessof an individual program component.A systematic review of injury/illness prevention and loss controlprograms (IPCs)19