↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Functional capacity evaluations for the prevention of occupational re‐injuries in injured workers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

33 Mendeley
Functional capacity evaluations for the prevention of occupational re‐injuries in injured workers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007290.pub3
Pubmed ID

Norashikin Mahmud, Frederieke G Schaafsma, Jean‐Baptiste Fassier, Jos H Verbeek, Michiel F Reneman


Functional capacity evaluation (FCE) has been widely used to assess workers' physical state of readiness to return to work (RTW) after an injury and to make recommendations for the time and capacity in which they might return. FCEs are also used to prevent re-injury after RTW. Despite being a commonly used tool, little is known about how effective FCE is in preventing occupational injuries.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of FCE-based return to work recommendations in preventing occupational re-injuries of injured workers compared with no intervention or alternative interventions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2009), EMBASE (1980 to December 2009), CINAHL (1980 to December 2009), PsycINFO (1983 to December 2009) and PEDro (1929 to December 2009). The searches were not restricted by date, language or type of publication. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of FCE-based return to work recommendations for preventing occupational re-injuries in injured workers. Four authors (NM, ES, JV, ML), in pairs, independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We found no studies that compared FCE to no intervention. We found one RCT with 372 participants in which a short-form of one FCE was compared to the standard long-form FCE (Isernhagen Work Systems). Outcomes were recurrence rates of re-injuries. There was no significant difference between the two forms of FCE.We rated the overall quality of the evidence as low. There is no evidence for or against the effectiveness of FCE compared to no intervention. A short version of FCE showed similar effectiveness to a long version in preventing re-injury. More RCTs are needed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Psychology 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 36%