Next Article in Journal
Impact of Foehn Wind and Related Environmental Variables on the Incidence of Cardiac Events
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Lifting Method, Safety Shoe Type, and Lifting Frequency on Maximum Acceptable Weight of Lift, Physiological Responses, and Safety Shoes Discomfort Rating
Previous Article in Journal
Asbestos Air Pollution: Description of a Mesothelioma Cluster Due to Residential Exposure from an Asbestos Cement Factory
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mapping the Scientific Research on Healthcare Workers’ Occupational Health: A Bibliometric and Social Network Analysis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/ijerph17082635
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

An Overview of REBA Method Applications in the World

by
Manuel Hita-Gutiérrez
1,
Marta Gómez-Galán
1,
Manuel Díaz-Pérez
1 and
Ángel-Jesús Callejón-Ferre
1,2,*
1
Department of Engineering, University of Almería, Research Center CIMEDES (CeiA3), 04120 Almería, Spain
2
Laboratory-Observatory Andalusian Working Conditions in the Agricultural Sector (LASA), 41092 Seville, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(8), 2635; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17082635
Submission received: 11 February 2020 / Revised: 5 April 2020 / Accepted: 8 April 2020 / Published: 12 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Knowledge for a Better Occupational Health and Safety Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objective of this work is to review literature, worldwide, in which the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) ergonomic assessment method was applied and count the number of times that REBA was applied together with other methods and subsequent incidence. The database used was the “Web of Science—Core Collection”. Only scientific articles and bibliographic reviews were included, analysing a total of 314 documents and selecting only 91. The use of the REBA method is indicated in terms of knowledge, country, year and journal sectors. It was most used in the knowledge areas of “Manufacturing” (24.18%), “Agriculture, forestry and fishing” (21.98%) and in “Other activities” (19.78%). One of the benefits of REBA is that it evaluates different body parts: upper limbs (arm, forearm and wrist), lower extremities, trunk and neck. It is a useful method to identify the forced postures adopted by workers to thus develop improvement measures if necessary. It is concluded that REBA method use has increased over the last decade, probably due to the digitization of knowledge. It is almost always applied in combination with other methods, and its use can be a positive indicator of company sustainability.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Musculoskeletal Disorders

According to the International Ergonomics Association [1], “ergonomics (or human factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data, and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system performance”.
The World Health Organization (WHO) states that Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD) “range from those that arise suddenly and are short-lived, such as fractures, sprains and strains, to lifelong conditions associated with ongoing pain and disability”. These disorders occur in people of any age and in all parts of the world. This disease has important economic consequences and implies a decrease in job performance, in addition to affecting the health of people who suffer from them [2].
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [3] defines musculoskeletal disorders as “a set of injuries and symptoms affecting the osteomuscular system and associated structures, such as bones, muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, nerves and the circulatory system”.
To combat MSDs, ergonomic assessment methods are used to identify and assess the risk factors present in the workplace, and then, based on the results obtained, to propose redesign options that reduce the risk to acceptable exposure levels for the worker [4].
Currently, given that applying ergonomic methods is sometimes tedious because of the number of aspects to consider, software exists that makes it much easier, in terms of time and efficiency, to obtain the final results [5].

1.2. Assessment Methods

The methods used for evaluating musculoskeletal disorders vary depending on the country, the companies carrying them out and the working environment, etc. For this reason, it is possible to classify them as direct, semi-direct or indirect methods [5]. Direct methods require electronic devices to be placed on the individual’s body, evaluating the worker in real time. Semi-direct methods (Figure 1) are based on images that are subsequently evaluated while indirect methods use questionnaires.
Semi-direct methods can be classified according to the cause of the MSD. In this study, the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) method is one of the methods used for assessing forced postures (Figure 1).
The application of methods such as REBA has evolved over time. It started with photographs, paper and pen. Over time, progress was made using video recordings and employing analysis of this through software. Currently, some equipment is used to measure angles and evaluate in real time [23,24].

1.3. The Rapid Entire Body Assessment Method (REBA), Justification and Objective

This method was developed by Sue Hignett and Lynn McAtamney at Nottingham Hospital (The United Kingdom) and published in 2000 [12]. It is the result of cooperative work carried out by teams of ergonomists, physiotherapists and nurses after identifying/analysing around 600 working postures. REBA allows one to jointly analyse the postures of the upper limbs (arm, forearm, wrist), trunk, neck and lower extremities. In addition, it discriminates the type of grip and muscle activity performed. It identifies five levels of risk, from negligible to very high [12].
The main advantages of the REBA method are [25]:
  • The cost-effectiveness ratio is good.
  • It is easy to apply. Pen and paper are enough for data collection; however, there are computer applications that speed up/facilitate its use.
  • The most conflictive ergonomic aspects are identified from the individual score obtained after assessing each part of the body.
The main limitations are [25]:
  • It only allows the analysis of individual postures. It is not possible to analyse a set or sequence of postures.
  • Task evaluations will depend on the evaluator. Some of the positions adopted may or may not be examined.
  • It only measures the effort intensity. The duration of exposure and the frequency of postures throughout the working day are not considered.
One of the requirements of the method is to have the consent of the worker to obtain the necessary information. The evaluators observe all the tasks to be analysed. Observation can be completed in three ways: direct observation, video recording or taking photographs. The aim is to collect data that allows the method to be used to obtain results.
On the other hand, the method presents some differences with respect to others. One of the main differences is that it considers the lower extremities of the worker [12]. These are not considered by other evaluation methods such as RULA [6]. There are no better or worse methods, but they are applied depending on the evaluators’ situations and resources [26].
It should be noted that once the method has been published, over the years, it is very important to know its worldwide application.
Examining the use of the REBA method, since its inception, would justify the impact of this method on society.
The main objective of this work is to carry out a bibliographic review of the REBA method [12] application in the fields of knowledge, countries, years and journals from the period May 2002 to July 2019. In addition, this study aims to count the number of times that REBA has been applied together with other methods and subsequent incidence. Finally, an objective is to demonstrate whether it has been applied in the health field and what happens with respect to the rest of the knowledge categories.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Searching for Information

In order to search for the information, electronic access to the library of the University of Almeria was used. Then the “Web of Science—Core Collection (WOS)” database was accessed. Its license is granted by Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT).
It was assumed that all the researchers who applied REBA in any field of knowledge would have cited the article where this method was published. Therefore, the search process was performed to access all the studies that cited it. “Advanced Search” was used in WOS with the terms “so=applied ergonomics and ti=Rapid entire body assessment (REBA)”. In this way, a single result was obtained, which was the original article of REBA [12]. Accessing this result, the “Times Cited” section was consulted, which showed all the studies that had cited the REBA article [12]. There was a total of 442, in the period from 2002 to 10/07/2019.
Of the 442 citations, books, book chapters or other formats were discarded, finally obtaining 314 citations for articles and reviews. It is worth reiterating that only the WOS database was used.
Of these 314 results, the number of studies finally selected for this document was 91. These do not include the original article of the method. Some studies were discarded because they were repeated articles, sometimes as reprints or as conferences that were subsequently published in journals, so only the original article was considered. Others were discarded because, although they cited the paper on the REBA method, they did not apply it in the research. Only articles using REBA method were considered, individually or in combination with other methods.

2.2. Data Analysis

Variables, categories and their abbreviations are shown below (Table 1). In addition, all journals were considered.
The knowledge categories, countries and years were grouped to facilitate data management. Countries were grouped into continents. Not all countries on a continent are shown, only those where the REBA method was applied.
On the other hand, the 91 final studies were grouped according to field, year, country and journal. For the general grouping by sectors, an adapted classification was used [27]. Another classification was made within each sector, but in this case it was from the information obtained from studies analysed, for greater clarity and organization of this information.
XLSTAT2019 (Addinsoft, Paris, France) [28] software was used for the results analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

The frequencies of each variable category are shown in Table 2.
The area in which the method was applied most is the “Manufacturing (C)” followed by “Agriculture, forestry and fishing (A)” and “Other activities (OTH)”. Between the period 2014 and 2019 (Y5 and Y4), more than 70% of the REBA applications were published. Half of the studies with REBA were published in Asia (C2). The total number of journals is 91. The most striking observation is that, although the method was initially published in 2000, its application was not significant until about 15 years later, possibly because of the digitization of academic/scientific content and the massive user access via the internet [29]. This coincides with other applications concerning ergonomic assessment methods, namely the case of OWAS [5].
Risk assessment is mandatory in all companies. Each one chooses the evaluation method. REBA [12] allows for the identification of the musculoskeletal disorders suffered by workers in different fields, mainly forced postures.

3.1. Analysis by Field and Knowledge Categories

3.1.1. Human Health and Social Work Activities

Table 3 shows studies related to human health and social work activities.

Hospitals

The REBA assessment method is sometimes combined with results support software, as was the case with Abdollahzade et al. [30] using SPSS in the study of 147 high-risk nurses in Tabriz, Iran. It is also common to create computer applications based on the REBA method. Janowitz et al. [35] created a hospital task-scoring algorithm while several authors [31] established a computer system based on information and communication technologies to support hospital processes.
In 2014, Kim and Roh [37] conducted a REBA method-based study on radiologists with more than five years of experience, demonstrating that MSDs occur mainly in the shoulder and lumbar regions, the same symptoms suffered by surgical nurses in a Portuguese hospital [42].
The combination of ergonomic methods developed by Ratzon et al. [41] in the study of 31 nurses, was not enough to determine the effect of poor postural habits on the job. Therefore, they recommend a longer period of study to see if the intervention might reduce MSDs.

Dentistry

Applying REBA to dental hygienists is a common practice in the study of plantar pressure [36] and in the taking of oral X-ray images [38]. On other occasions, it is combined with other methods, as was the case with Rafeemanesh et al. [40] in order to demonstrate that the neck area is the most vulnerable part for these professionals and to raise awareness of the importance of workplace design and rest periods during the activity as a basic prevention principle.

Gynaecology

Several authors [34] observed the need for engineering solutions that allow surgeons flexibility during their interaction with patients.

Otorhinolaryngology (ENT)

A study was carried out to evaluate the musculoskeletal disorders of ENT specialists in the surgical context. Their training and the ergonomic tools used were also analysed. The results show that only 24% of the workers were trained in ergonomics. It was also concluded that the workers adopted forced postures [44].

Others

According to Carneiro et al. [32], home-care nurses generally have a moderate postural assessment in their work activities.
When comparing different forms of tracheal intubation, several authors [33] used the REBA method to determine which technique, GlideScope or Macintosh, was less likely to cause musculoskeletal injuries during use, the former scoring the highest and therefore being the one chosen.
In the refitting of a vaccine production centre, Torres and Vina [43], in a study using REBA and NIOSH, established shelf redesigns and working method modifications as a measure to reduce the MSD risk level. On the other hand, Pascal and Naqvi [39] in a Canadian study outlined the need for retraining plans to help raise awareness of the risks posed by bad work activity practices.

3.1.2. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing

Table 4 shows the studies related to agriculture, forestry and fishing.

Forestry

In this sector, REBA began to develop in Canada and the US with the combination of five ergonomic assessment methods in sawmill facilities [54,55,56]. In addition, ErgoFellow software combined REBA and OWAS methods in the ergonomic assessment of forestry machinery use [57], concluding that chainsaw operator work is more demanding and riskier than that of wood collector operators over the course of the activity [52]. The same conclusions were drawn in the study on chainsaw use employing the OCRA, OWAS, RNLE equation and REBA methods [64]. In 2019, REBA and RULA were compared in wood chipping activity concluding that the latter offered greater risk prevention when applying the method [46]. Likewise, in 2017, several authors [60] used REBA to assess management worker tasks.
In forest nurseries, Unver-Okan et al. [63] combined several ergonomic methods to study working postures, such as seed sifting or machine sowing. They finally chose the RULA method for assessment because of its increased sensitivity in the final result.

Livestock

In the livestock field, Taghavi and Mokarami [62] used the REBA method to assess the postural burden related to feeding, milking and dung removal during milk production. In Brazil, numerous authors [50] did the same with regard to milking and livestock management activities, demonstrating a high level of risk over the course of the activity.

Agriculture

Das and Gangopadhyay [47] applied REBA in potato growers in order to assess musculoskeletal disorders. They showed that one of the most affected body areas was the lumbar region. The same was stated by Das et al. [49] who applied it in the same crop type, but in this case studying children. The method has also been used in the study of crops such as tomato [59,61], pepper [59], rice [58], oil palm [51] and apples [53], as well as in the collection of ornamental plants [45] and seeds [48].

3.1.3. Manufacturing

Table 5 lists studies that used the REBA method in different areas of manufacturing.

Metallurgical Sector

The first analyses appeared in 2013 in Spain with REBA combined with RULA [71], and with BREBA [67] in 2015 in Turkey, the common goal being to eliminate economic risks and improve the production systems in factories. In the first case, this was achieved by means of simulations and, in the second, by means of photographs. Subsequently, several authors again combined methods (OWAS, RULA and REBA) [66,76] in iron and steel operations that involved milling, turning and drilling.

Textiles

Isler et al. [75] studied 65 operators from different departments (cutting, sewing, ironing, quality control, etc.) in eight companies using video cameras, resulting in a REBA score of more than 11 points; thus, they recommended immediate intervention. In Sri Lanka, 552 female foot-sewing-machine operators were tested, with the medium-high REBA intervention warning regarding problems in the knees, feet and thighs [79].

Technology

The application of REBA in manufacturing technology is defined by activities such as computer repair [77] or the manufacturing of electrical products [86]. In addition, it was combined with other methods such as OCRA to study the ergonomic assessment of electric motor assembly line operators [69]. Felekoglu and Tasan [70] have replaced traditional REBA assessment with Kinect sensors and electrogoniometers.

Production Lines

Many authors analysed production lines for automotive elements [84], plastics [83] or brick furnaces [81] using the REBA method. Conversely, Cornell University [72] developed a REBA-inspired musculoskeletal discomfort questionnaire, the AnyBody Modeling System (AMS) and electromyography measurements that identified the musculoskeletal disorders of employees on a harness assembly line.
At other times, the method was applied individually or in conjunction with other methods in packing factories dealing with varied orders [85], beverages [65] and even minerals [68], or in operations carried out by potters and sculptors [80] who suffer curvature in various parts of the body derived from forced postures.
In rubber production in Iran, Samanei et al. [82] combined the REBA and NMQ methods with a subsequent results analysis using SPSS software, concluding by identifying the need for immediate intervention in the lumbar region.
In sand-dredging operations in Udupi (India) [78], the REBA method, with a 12-point assessment, advised immediate intervention to reduce injuries, specifically in the lower back, as did the assessment by Hanson et al. [73] in manual collection operations. Furthermore, recent studies in the United Kingdom [74] gathered information on the effects of individual skills on job performance and safety in the workplace as well as human well-being, to design more inclusive work practices.

3.1.4. Transportation and Storage

Table 6 shows the four publications that have applied REBA individually or collectively in the study of forced postures related to transportation and storage.
There were two publications combining RULA and REBA. In the first, Balaji and Alphin [88] took photographs of operators who handled industrial excavators, observing that 46% of workers were exposed to high levels of danger; this resulted in the tasks being optimized and redesigned. In the second, Bora et al. [89] evaluated posture parameters in industrial vehicles using CATIA software.
Ahmed et al. [87], using a combination of ergonomic methods, assessed bus drivers who transported people with reduced mobility, looking at three different wheeled mobility devices: manual, scooter and electric. The results determined a high level of risk during the WTORS (Wheelchair Clamping and Occupant Restriction System) procedure. In the railway sector, several authors [90] combined REBA and NMQ in the ergonomic study of 51 railway workers, determining that the shoulder was the most affected body area followed by the neck.

3.1.5. Water Supply; Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation Activities

Table 7 shows two studies related to waste management.
Cakit [91] combined the REBA and RULA methods in the study of waste collection movements, mainly in lifting and unloading tasks, considering it essential that these tasks be changed as soon as possible. Jozwiak et al. [92], used REBA, FirstBeat and stadiometry in the ergonomic study of urban solid waste collectors.

3.1.6. Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities

Table 8 shows publications that focus on different professional, scientific and technical activities.
In professionals working with laboratory sample preparation [94], the REBA method assessed six subtasks for each of the six tasks analysed, concluding there was a medium-high risk level in at least one subtask for each task.
This method was also used, in combination with others, in sales assistants in Italy [93].

3.1.7. Activities of Households as Employers; Undifferentiated Goods—and Services—Producing Activities of Households for Own Use

There are three publications related to activities of households in which the REBA method has been applied: Lim et al. [95], Lofqvist et al. [96] and Rui et al. [97], corresponding to vacuum cleaning work, basic household chores and tasks associated with drying clothes, respectively (Table 9).

3.1.8. Education

In the field of education, only Hashim et al. [98] combined REBA and RULA to assess the different positions students take while they do their schoolwork, demonstrating that the majority need immediate intervention to prevent greater prejudicial effects (Table 10).

3.1.9. Construction

Table 11 shows studies related to construction.
Several authors [102] created an ergonomic assessment tool using videos that allowed for postures to be assessed while working. Kim et al. [100], for their part, demonstrated how the manufacture of goods from prefabricated panels negatively influenced the spinal column of the workers.
In addition, other authors [101] made use of new 3D technologies to screen workers in different workplaces thus reducing the costs derived from MSDs and correcting bad habits. Conversely, in Western Bengal (India), Chatterjee and Sahu [99] combined different ergonomic assessment methods to demonstrate that a more conciliatory schedule and rest times, accompanied by technical modifications in the workplace and the use of redesigned equipment, reduced the risk of MSD.

3.1.10. Other Activities

Table 12 includes studies that could not be classified in any of the above areas.
The REBA method has been translated into other languages such as Portuguese [110]. Its reliability was also evaluated in 2019 by Schwartz et al. [116]. Moreover, it has been compared to other methods [115], raising the possibility of creating a comprehensive method for all work tasks and all body parts. Diego-Mas et al. [107] produced a study that detected the anomalies of different ergonomic assessment methods.
In Jaipur, India, two studies by Mukhopadhyay analysed the ergonomic assessment of operators in three artisanal sectors [112] as well as in stone carving [113]. Other authors assessed African women as they carried out two tasks related to loading bricks on their heads [106] and the load variance during pregnancy [108]. Bicycle repair [111] and marine mollusc collection [109] were also assessed using the REBA method.
Furthermore, the use of ergonomic assessment methods is common in areas such as aircraft maintenance [103], electrical equipment manufacture [104], armament cleaning tasks [114], engine oil companies [118], various industrial sectors [105] and even in multitasking jobs [117].
Yuan [120] assessed 39 employees from nine different library divisions on two occasions by combining the REBA and RULA methods. The workers’ bad habits were improved once action guidelines were established.
Finally, REBA was also combined with other evaluation methods in the case of firefighters and medical emergency technicians [119].

3.2. Analysis by Country

The REBA method has been applied in 91 cases and in 24 different countries. The country where the highest number of studies has been carried out is India, with a total of 16; followed by the USA with 11; Iran and Turkey with eight; Canada and South Korea with seven; Brazil with five; Poland with four; Italy with three; Spain, Portugal, Malaysia, The United Kingdom, China, Sweden, and Israel with two, and Nigeria, Germany, Mexico, Croatia, Tunisia, Singapore, Cuba, and Venezuela with one publication each (Figure 2). One can observe that approximately 50% of the countries where REBA was used are in the process of developing.
In “manufacturing”, five REBA applications in India and four in Turkey stand out. In turn, in “agriculture, forestry and fishing”, four research studies in India and three in Brazil are highlighted. In “other activities”, four studies in the USA and India and three in Canada stand out.
The USA is one of the countries with the highest number of contributions over diverse fields: human health and social work activities (2), agriculture, forestry and fishing (2), transportation and storage (1), professional, scientific and technical activities (1), construction (1) and others activities (4).
If you look at the United Kingdom, the country where the REBA method arose, there were only two studies in which the method was applied. This fact is countered by the much higher use of other methods, such as OWAS [13], in its country of origin [5]. Perhaps this is because the REBA method is more recent (the year 2000) than OWAS (1977).

3.3. Analysis by Year

The year with the highest number of publications was 2015, when there were fourteen in seven different areas, followed by 2017 and 2018 with twelve publications and 2016 and 2019 with ten (Figure 3). The years when there were the lowest number of research studies were 2007, 2008 and 2011 with two publications and 2006 with only one. On the other hand, over the years spanning the bibliographic review, there is no indication of any REBA method being applied in 2009 (Figure 3).
Thanks to society’s awareness of the risks of MSD in the workplace, the publication of studies is growing exponentially over recent years, no doubt because of the developments in information and communication technologies, as mentioned before.

3.4. Analysis by Journal

The journals that most stand out are: “Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment and Rehabilitation” with 18.68% of the publications and the “International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics” with 15.38% (Table 13). “Applied Ergonomics”, “Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries”, “Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University” and the “International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics” are next with 3.30% each (Table 13).

3.5. Combination with Other Methods

REBA is normally applied in conjunction with other assessment methods for musculoskeletal disorders. The REBA method [12] is mainly used to evaluate forced postures (Figure 1). However, it is sometimes combined with methods that study other risk factors. One of them, the RULA method, is also used to analyse repetitive movements (associated with REBA) [6]. Due to these considerations, some studies present a broader and more complete analysis [46,66].
In 47 of the studies reviewed, REBA is applied along with other methods [31,40,41,43,46,48,49,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,71,75,76,79,80,82,83,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,98,99,100,103,104,105,112,114,117,119,120]. These 47 results are included in the following categories: “human health and social work activities”, “agriculture, forestry and fishing”, “manufacturing”, “transportation and storage”, “water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities”, “professional, scientific and technical activities”, “education”, “construction” and “other activities”. Of these, “agriculture, forestry and fishing” stands out with 13 studies, followed by “manufacturing” with 12. Thanks to the combined use of the methods, the upper limbs, trunk, neck and lower extremities can be evaluated with greater precision [12].

4. Conclusions

The REBA method is mainly used for the analysis of forced postures. It is not useful for the evaluation of repetitive movements.
Although this method was initially intended to be applied to the analysis of forced postures in personnel related to the human health and social work activities field, as well as various activities in the service sector, it can be applied to any sector or labour activity. In fact, it is observed that the application number is greater in other knowledge categories than in the original field.
In this literature review, the REBA method was mainly applied to three areas: “manufacturing”, “agriculture, forestry and fishing” and “other activities”.
It is often widely used in combination with other methods and has was greatly by the digitization of scientific content over the last decade.
In addition, unlike other methods which that are combined with REBA, this one focuses on the upper limbs (arm, forearm and wrist), lower extremities, trunk and neck.
In the Americas, its application is highly diversified over the different fields of knowledge. Conversely, in Asia, it is applied more specifically in two sectors: “manufacturing” and “agriculture, forestry and fishing”.
In countries immersed in the development process, it is not easily used since they do not have enough technology or information on the method. However, the fact that approximately 50% of the studies were carried out in developing countries may be an indicator of sustainable processes starting in companies there.
The journals that have published the most studies on applying the REBA method are “Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment and Rehabilitation” and the “International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics”.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; methodology, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; software, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; validation, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; formal analysis, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; research, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; resources, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; data curation, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; writing—review and editing, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; visualization, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F.; project administration, M.H.-G., M.G.-G., M.D.-P., and Á.-J.C.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

Laboratory-Observatory Andalusian Working Conditions in the Agricultural Sector (LASA; C.G. 401487) and the Research Own Plan of the University of Almería.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. International Ergonomics Association (IEA). What Is Ergonomics? Available online: https://iea.cc/what-is-ergonomics/ (accessed on 3 April 2020).
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Musculoskeletal Conditions. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/musculoskeletal-conditions (accessed on 3 April 2020).
  3. NIOSH. Technical Reports. Division of Biomedical, and Behavioral Science. In Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting; US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1981; pp. 1–198. [Google Scholar]
  4. Asensio-Cuesta, S.; Bastante-Ceca, M.; Diego-Más, J. Evaluación Ergonómica de Puestos de Trabajo; Paraninfo: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gómez-Galán, M.; Pérez-Alonso, J.; Callejon-Ferre, A.J.; López-Martínez, J. Musculoskeletal disorders: OWAS review. Ind. Health 2017, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. McAtamney, L.; Corlett, E.N. RULA: A survey method for the investigation of work-related upper limb disorders. Appl. Ergon. 1993, 24, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moore, J.S.; Garg, A. The Strain Index: A proposed method to analyze jobs for risk of distal upper extremity disorders. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1995, 56, 443–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. James, C.P.A.; Harburn, K.L.; Kramer, J.F. Cumulative trauma disorders in the upper extremities: Reliability of the postural and repetitive risk-factors index. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1997, 78, 860–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. García, C.; Chirivela, C.; Page del Pozo, A.; Moraga, R.; Jorquera, J. Método Ergo IBV. Evaluación de Riesgos Laborales Asociados a la Carga Física; Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia (IBV): Valencia, Spain, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  10. Colombini, D. An observational method for classifying exposure to repetitive movements of the upper limbs. Ergonomics 1998, 41, 1261–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kemmlert, K. A method assigned for the identification of ergonomic hazards—PLIBEL. Appl. Ergon. 1995, 26, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hignett, S.; Mcatamney, L. Rapid entire body assessment (REBA). Appl. Ergon. 2000, 31, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Karhu, O.; Kansi, P.; Kuorinka, I. Correcting working postures in industry: A practical method for analysis. Appl. Ergon. 1977, 8, 199–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Corlett, E.; Madeley, S.; Manenica, I. Posture targetting: A technique for recording working postures. Ergonomics 1979, 22, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kilbom, A.; Persson, J.; Jonsson, B. Risk factors for workrelated disorders of the neck and shoulder—With special emphasis on working postures and movements. In The Ergonomics of Working Postures; Corlett, E.N., Wilson, J., Manenica, I., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 1986; pp. 44–53. [Google Scholar]
  16. Buchholz, B.; Paquet, V.; Punnett, L.; Lee, D.; Moir, S. PATH: A work sampling-based approach to ergonomic job analysis for construction and other non-repetitive work. Appl. Ergon. 1996, 27, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). Work Practices Guide for Manual Lifting; NIOSH Technical Report; NIOSH: Cincinnaty, OH, USA, 1981; pp. 81–122.
  18. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (INSHT). Guía Técnica para la Evaluación y Prevención de los Riesgos Relativos a la Manipulación Manual de Cargas; Guías Técnicas; INSHT: Madrid, Spain, 1998. Available online: https://www.insst.es/documents/94886/509319/GuiatecnicaMMC.pdf/27a8b126-a827-4edd-aa4c-7c0ca0a86cda (accessed on 1 November 2019).
  19. Snook, S.H.; Ciriello, V.M. The design of manual handling tasks: Revised tables of maximum acceptable weights and forces. Ergonomics 1991, 34, 1197–1213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jürgens, W.W.; Mohr, D.; Pangert, R.; Pernack, E.; Schultz, K.; Steinberg, U. Handlungsanleitung zur Beurteilung der Arbeitsbedingungen beim Heben und Tragen von Lasten; LASI Veröffentlichung: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2001; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  21. Monnington, S.; Quarrie, C.; Pinder, A.; Morris, L. Development of manual handling assessment charts (MAC) for health and safety inspectors. In Contemporary Ergonomics; CRC Press: London, UK, 2003; pp. 3–8. [Google Scholar]
  22. Liberty-Mutual. Manual Materials Handling Tables. 2011. Available online: http://libertymmhtables.libertymutual.com/CM_LMTablesWeb/pdf/LibertyMutualTables.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2019).
  23. von Macard, T.; Rosenhahn, B.; Black, M.J.; Pons-Moll, G. Spare inertial poser: Automatic 3D human pose estimation from sparse IMUs. Comput. Graph. Forum 2017, 36, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. ViveLab Ergo. Ergonomic Verification in 3D Virtual Space. Available online: https://www.vivelab.cloud/ (accessed on 3 April 2020).
  25. INSST. NTP 601: Evaluación de las Condiciones de Trabajo: Carga Postural. Método REBA; Instituto de Seguridad e Higiene del Trabajo: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
  26. Takala, E.P.; Pehkonen, I.; Forsman, M.; Hansson, G.A.; Mthiassen, S.E.; Neumann, W.P.; Sjogaard, G.; Veiersted, K.B.; Westgaard, R.H.; Winkel, J. Systematic evaluation of observational methods assessing biomechanical exposures at work. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2010, 36, 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Eurostat. NACE Rev. 2. Structure and Explanatory Notes. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/1965800/1978839/NACE_rev2_explanatory_notes_EN.pdf/b09f2cb4-5dac-4118-9164-bcc39b791ef5 (accessed on 18 March 2020).
  28. Addinsoft. XLSTAT2019, Analyse de Données et Statistique Avec MS Excel; Addinsoft: Paris, France, 2019; Available online: https://www.xlstat.com/es/empresa (accessed on 24 November 2019).
  29. Aguillo, I. Tecnologías, investigación y futuro de la profesión. Prof. Inf. 2012, 21, 5–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Abdollahzade, F.; Mohammadi, F.; Dianat, I.; Asghari, E.; Asghari-Jafarabadi, M.; Sokhanvar, Z. Working posture and its predictors in hospital operating room nurses. Health Promot. Perspect. 2016, 6, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bartnicka, J. Knowledge-based ergonomic assessment of working conditions in surgical ward—A case study. Saf. Sci. 2015, 71, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Carneiro, P.; Martins, J.; Torres, M. Musculoskeletal disorder risk assessment in home care nurses. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2015, 51, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Grundgeiger, T.; Roewer, N.; Grundgeiger, J.; Hurtienne, J.; Happel, O. Body posture during simulated tracheal intubation: GlideScope (R) videolaryngoscopy vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for novices and experts. Anaesthesia 2015, 70, 1375–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hignett, S.; Gyi, D.; Calkins, L.; Jones, L.; Moss, E. Human Factors Evaluation of Surgeons’ Working Positions for Gynecologic Minimal Access Surgery. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017, 24, 1178–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Janowitz, I.L.; Gillen, M.; Ryan, G.; Rempel, D.; Trupin, L.; Swig, L.; Mullen, K.; Rugulies, R.; Blanc, P.D. Measuring the physical demands of work in hospital settings: Design and implementation of an ergonomics assessment. Appl. Ergon. 2006, 37, 641–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, J.; Park, B.Y.; Mun, S.J.; Shim, J.; Choi, E.S.; Noh, H. Differences in plantar pressure by REBA scores in dental hygienists. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2019, 17, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kim, T.; Roh, H. Analysis of risk factors for work-related musculoskeletal disorders in radiological technologists. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2014, 26, 1423–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Noh, H.; Roh, H. Approach of industrial physical therapy to assessment of the musculoskeletal system and ergonomic risk factors of the dental hygienist. J. Phys. Ther. Sci 2013, 25, 821–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Pascual, S.A.; Naqvi, S. An investigation of ergonomics analysis tools used in industry in the identification of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2008, 14, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Rafeemanesh, E.; Jafari, Z.; Kashani, F.O.; Rahimpour, F. A study on job postures and musculoskeletal illnesses in dentists. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2013, 26, 615–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Ratzon, N.Z.; Bar-Niv, N.A.; Froom, P. The effect of a structured personalized ergonomic intervention program for hospital nurses with reported musculoskeletal pain: An assigned randomized control trial. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2016, 54, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Torres, M.; Carneiro, P.; Arezes, P. WMSDs in nurses that provide care in surgical internment context. Int. J. Work. Cond. 2017, 14, 33–49. [Google Scholar]
  43. Torres, Y.; Vina, S. Evaluation and redesign of manual material handling in a vaccine production centre’s warehouse. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2012, 41, 2487–2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Vaisbuch, Y.; Aaron, K.A.; Moore, J.M.; Vaughan, J.; Ma, Y.F.; Gupta, R.; Jackler, R.K. Ergonomic hazards in otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2019, 129, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Camargo, V.M.; Hembecker, P.K.; Lima, I.A.X.; Moro, A.R.P.; Gontijo, L.A. Ergonomic assessment in a producer of ornamental plants in Brazil. Int. J. Work. Cond. 2015, 10, 138–151. [Google Scholar]
  46. Cremasco, M.M.; Giustetto, A.; Caffaro, F.; Colantoni, A.; Cavallo, E.; Grigolato, S. Risk assessment for musculoskeletal disorders in forestry: A comparison between RULA and REBA in the manual feeding of a wood-chipper. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Das, B.; Gangopadhyay, S. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders and physiological stress among adult, male potato cultivators of West Bengal, India. Asia-Pac. J. Public Health 2015, 27, 1669–1682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Das, B.; Ghosh, T.; Gangopadhyay, S. Assessment of ergonomic and occupational health-related problems among female prawn seed collectors of Sunderbans, West Bengal, India. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2012, 18, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Das, B.; Ghosh, T.; Gangopadhyay, S. Child work in agriculture in West Bengal, India: Assessment of musculoskeletal disorders and occupational health problems. J. Occup. Health 2013, 55, 244–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. De Oliveira, C.C.; Xavier, A.A.D.; Ulbricht, L.; Moro, A.R.P.; Belinelli, M.M. Health in the rural environment: A postural evaluation of milking workers in Brazil. Cah. Agric. 2018, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Deros, B.M.; Ali, M.H.; Mohamad, D.; Daruis, D.D.I. Ergonomic risk assessment on oil palm industry workers. Iran. J. Public Health 2016, 45, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
  52. Enez, K.; Nalbantoglu, S.S. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment outputs from OWAS and REBA in forestry timber harvesting. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 70, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Houshyar, E.; Kim, I.J. Understanding musculoskeletal disorders among Iranian apple harvesting laborers: Ergonomic and stop watch time studies. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 67, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jones, T.; Kumar, S. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessments in a repetitive high-risk sawmill occupation: Saw-filer. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2007, 37, 744–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jones, T.; Kumar, S. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in a repetitive sawmill occupation: Trim-saw operator. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2008, 31, 367–376. [Google Scholar]
  56. Jones, T.; Kumar, S. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment output in four sawmill jobs. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2010, 16, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Landekic, M.; Katusa, S.; Mijoc, D.; Sporcic, M. Assessment and comparison of machine operators’ working posture in forest thinning. Seefor-South-East Eur. For. 2019, 10, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pal, A.; Dhara, P.C. Work related musculoskeletal disorders and postural stress of the women cultivators engaged in uprooting job of rice cultivation. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2018, 22, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Riemer, R.; Bechar, A. Investigation of productivity enhancement and biomechanical risks in greenhouse crops. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 147, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Schettino, S.; Campos, J.C.C.; Minette, L.J.; de Souza, A.P. Work precariousness: Ergonomic risks to operators of machines adapted for forest harvesting. Revista Arvore 2017, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Silver, K.; Hoffman, K.; Loury, S.; Fethke, N.B.; Liebman, A.; Manz, N.; Manock, S.; Andino, A.; Bradfield, M.; Morrissette, D.; et al. Campus-community partnership for farmworkers’ health: Interventions for tomato workers in Tennessee. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Act. 2014, 8, 501–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Taghavi, S.M.; Mokarami, H.; Ahmadi, O.; Stallones, L.; Abbaspour, A.; Marioryad, H. Risk factors for developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders during dairy farming. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 8, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Unver-Okan, S.; Acar, H.H.; Kaya, A. Determination of work postures with different ergonomic risk assessment methods in forest nurseries. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2017, 26, 7362–7371. [Google Scholar]
  64. Gallo, R.; Mazzetto, F. Ergonomic analysis for the assessment of the risk of work-related musculoskeletal disorder in forestry operations. J. Agric. Eng. 2013, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Abaraogu, U.O.; Odebiyi, D.O.; Olawale, O.A. Association between postures and work-related musculoskeletal discomforts (WRMD) among beverage bottling workers. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2016, 54, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Boulila, A.; Ayadi, M.; Mrabet, K. Ergonomics study and analysis of workstations in Tunisian mechanical manufacturing. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2018, 28, 166–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Can, G.F.; Atalay, K.D.; Eraslan, E. Working posture analysis in fuzzy environment and ergonomic work station design recommendations. J. Fac. Eng. Gazi Univ. 2015, 30, 451–460. [Google Scholar]
  68. Dehghani, F.; Zakerian, S.A.; Zare, A.; Omidi, F.; Moradpour, Z.; Eynipour, A.; Kakavandi, M.G. Ergonomic interventions for improving working postures associated with manual materials handling (case study: A mineral processing plant). J. Health Saf. Work 2016, 6, 85–94. [Google Scholar]
  69. Escalona, L.Y.; Venot, R.S.; Escalona, E.; Yanes, L. The reality of the women who make our lives easier: Experience in a company that assemblies electric motors in Venezuela. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2012, 41, 1775–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Felekoglu, B.; Tasan, S.O. Ergonomic risk assessment for work-related musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic reactive/proactive integrated approach. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ. 2017, 32, 777–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Garcia-Garcia, M.; Sanchez-Lite, A.; Camacho, A.M.; Domingo, R. Analysis of postural assessment methods and virtual simulation tools into manufacturing engineering. Dyna-Colombia 2013, 80, 5–15. [Google Scholar]
  72. Gonen, D.; Karaoglan, A.D.; Ocaktan, M.A.B.; Oral, A.; Aticti, H.; Kaya, B. A new risk assessment approach for the analysis of musculoskeletal disorders. J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ. 2018, 33, 423–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hanson, R.; Medbo, L.; Berlin, C.; Hansson, J. Manual picking from flat and tilted pallet containers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2018, 64, 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hussain, A.; Case, K.; Marshall, R.; Summerskill, S. Using Ergonomic Risk Assessment Methods for Designing Inclusive Work Practices: A Case Study. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2016, 26, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Isler, M.; Kucuk, M.; Guner, M. Ergonomic assessment of working postures in clothing sector with scientific observation methods. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2018, 30, 757–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kee, D.; Karwowski, W. A comparison of three observational techniques for assessing postural loads in industry. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2007, 13, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Maldonado-Macias, A.; Realyvasquez, A.; Hernandez, J.L.; Garcia-Alcaraz, J. Ergonomic assessment for the task of repairing computers in a manufacturing company: A case study. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2015, 52, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Mohapatra, S.; Shaikh, A.; Nayak, P.; Navada, R. Hazards and health risks encountered by manual sand dredgers from Udupi, India: A cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2017, 11, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Nagaraj, T.S.; Jeyapaul, R.; Mathiyazhagan, K. Evaluation of ergonomic working conditions among standing sewing machine operators in Sri Lanka. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 70, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sahu, S.; Moitra, S.; Maity, S.; Pandit, A.K.; Roy, B. A comparative ergonomics postural assessment of potters and sculptors in the unorganized sector in West Bengal, India. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2013, 19, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Sain, M.K.; Meena, M.L. Exploring the musculoskeletal problems and associated risk-factors among brick kiln workers. Int. J. Workplace Health Manag. 2018, 11, 395–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Samaei, S.E.; Tirgar, A.; Khanjani, N.; Mostafaee, M.; Hosseinabadi, M.B. Effect of personal risk factors on the prevalence rate of musculoskeletal disorders among workers of an Iranian rubber factory. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2017, 57, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sanjog, J.; Patel, T.; Chowdhury, A.; Karmakar, S. Musculoskeletal ailments in Indian injection-molded plastic furniture manufacturing shop-floor: Mediating role of work shift duration. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015, 48, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yoon, S.Y.; Ko, J.; Jung, M.C. A model for developing job rotation schedules that eliminate sequential high workloads and minimize between-worker variability in cumulative daily workloads: Application to automotive assembly lines. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 55, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lasota, A.M. A REBA-based analysis of packers workload: A case study. LogForum 2014, 10, 87–95. [Google Scholar]
  86. Moussavi-Najarkola, S.; Mirzaei, R. Assessment of musculoskeletal loads of electric factory workers by rapid entire body assessment. Health Scope 2012, 1, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ahmed, M.; Campbell-Kyureghyan, N.; Frost, K.; Bertocci, G. Ergonomic evaluation of a wheelchair transportation securement system. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2012, 41, 4924–4930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Balaji, K.K.; Alphin, M.S. Computer-aided human factors analysis of the industrial vehicle driver cabin to improve occupational health. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 2016, 23, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Bora, S.; Bhalerao, Y.; Goyal, A.; Chakrabarti, D.; Chen, D.Z.; Bao, N.S.; Niu, X.; Garg, A. Computation of safety design indexes of industry vehicle operators based on the reach angle, the distance from elbow to ground and the popliteal height. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 71, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Khan, M.R.; Singh, N.K. Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among Indian railway sahayaks. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2018, 24, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Cakit, E. Assessment of the physical demands of waste collection tasks. Glob. Nest J. 2015, 17, 426–438. [Google Scholar]
  92. Jozwiak, Z.W.; Bortkiewicz, A.; Makowiec-Dabrowska, T.; Kapitaniak, B. Assessment of musculoskeletal load in refuse collectors. Med. Pracy 2013, 64, 507–519. [Google Scholar]
  93. Capodaglio, E.M. Occupational risk and prolonged standing work in apparel sales assistants. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2017, 60, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mork, M.A.; Choi, S.D. An ergonomic assessment of sample preparation job tasks in a chemical laboratory. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2015, 22, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lim, D.; Cho, Y.K.; Choi, H.H.; Hwang, S.J.; Han, P.; Woo, D.G.; Hwang, G.; Kim, Y.H.; Chu, J.; Shin, J.; et al. Evaluation of loads imposed on muscles and joints by repeated vacuum cleaning works for estimation of a potentiality of musculo-skeletal disorder occurrence. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. 2012, 13, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lofqvist, L.; Osvalder, A.L.; Bligard, L.O.; Pinzke, S. An analytical ergonomic risk evaluation of body postures during daily cleaning tasks in horse stables. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2015, 51, 667–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Rui, L.H.; Cheung, T.W.C.; Yang, Z.X.; Pratt, A.L. A pilot study: Exploring the musculoskeletal risk exposure associated with drying laundry using the public housing pipe-socket system amongst women in Singapore. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2018, 61, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Hashim, A.M.; Dawal, S.Z.M.; Yusoff, N. Ergonomic evaluation of postural stress in school workshop. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2012, 41, 827–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Chatterjee, A.; Sahu, S. A physiological exploration on operational stance and occupational musculoskeletal problem manifestations amongst construction labourers of West Bengal, India. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil. 2018, 31, 775–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kim, S.; Nussbaum, M.A.; Jia, B.C. Low back injury risks during construction with prefabricated (panelised) walls: Effects of task and design factors. Ergonomics 2011, 54, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Li, X.M.; Han, S.; Gul, M.; Al-Hussein, M.; El-Rich, M. 3D visualization-based ergonomic risk assessment and work modification framework and its validation for a lifting task. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2018, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yu, Y.T.; Yang, X.C.; Li, H.; Luo, X.C.; Guo, H.L.; Fang, Q. Joint-level vision-based ergonomic assessment tool for construction workers. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Asadi, H.; Yu, D.; Mott, J.H. Risk factors for musculoskeletal injuries in airline maintenance, repair and overhaul. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 70, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Beyan, A.C.; Alici, N.S.; Cimrin, A. A perspective on occupational musculoskeletal diseases in turkey; case cluster study. J. Clin. Anal. Med. 2017, 8, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chiasson, M.E.; Imbeau, D.; Aubry, K.; Delisle, A. Comparing the results of eight methods used to evaluate risk factors associated with musculoskeletal disorders. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2012, 42, 478–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Das, B. An evaluation of low back pain among female brick field workers of West Bengal, India. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2015, 20, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Diego-Mas, J.A.; Alcaide-Marzal, J.; Poveda-Bautista, R. Errors using observational methods for ergonomics assessment in real practice. Hum. Factors 2017, 59, 1173–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Dumas, G.A.; Preston, D.; Beaucage-Gauvreau, E.; Lawani, M. Posture analysis of lifting a load for head carriage and comparison between pregnant and non-pregnant women. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2014, 47, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Guertler, C.; Speck, G.M.; Mannrich, G.; Merino, G.; Merino, E.A.D.; Seiffert, W.Q. Occupational health and safety management in Oyster culture. Aquac. Eng. 2016, 70, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Lamarao, A.M.; Costa, L.C.M.; Comper, M.L.C.; Padula, R.S. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation to Brazilian-Portuguese and reliability analysis of the instrument Rapid Entire Body Assessment-REBA. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2014, 18, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  111. Mukhopadhyay, P.; Jhodkar, D.; Kumar, P. Ergonomic risk factors in bicycle repairing units at Jabalpur. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2015, 51, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Mukhopadhyay, P.; Srivastava, S. Ergonomic design issues in some craft sectors of jaipur. Des. J. 2010, 13, 99–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Mukhopadhyay, P.; Srivastava, S. Evaluating ergonomic risk factors in non-regulated stone carving units of Jaipur. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2010, 35, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Nam, K.H.; Lee, S.; Kyung, G.; An, J.; An, S. Development of ergonomic gun barrel cleaning method: Automation and its advantages. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2017, 27, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Roman-Liu, D. Comparison of concepts in easy-to-use methods for MSD risk assessment. Appl. Ergon. 2014, 45, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Schwartz, A.H.; Albin, T.J.; Gerberich, S.G. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the rapid entire body assessment (REBA) tool. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2019, 71, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Shanahan, C.J.; Vi, P.; Salas, E.A.; Reider, V.L.; Hochman, L.M.L.; Moore, A.E. A comparison of RULA, REBA and Strain Index to four psychophysical scales in the assessment of non-fixed work. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2013, 45, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Motamedzade, M.; Ashuri, M.; Golmohammadi, R.; Mahjub, H. Comparison of ergonomic risk assessment outputs from rapid entire body assessment and quick exposure check in an engine oil company. J. Res. Health Sci. 2011, 11, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  119. Gentzler, M.; Stader, S. Posture stress on firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) associated with repetitive reaching, bending, lifting, and pulling tasks. Work J. Prev. Assess. Rehabil. 2010, 37, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Yuan, L. Reducing ergonomic injuries for librarians using a participatory approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2015, 47, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 17 02635 g001 550
Figure 1. Semi-direct methods according to the cause of the musculoskeletal disorders and their combined use (adapted from Reference [5]). Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) [6]; Job Strain Index (JSI) [7]; Posture and Repetition Risk Factor Index (PRRI) [8]; Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia (In Spanish; IBV) [9]; Occupational Repetitive Action (OCRA) [10]; Method for the identification of musculoskeletal stress factors which may have injurious effects (PLIBEL) [11]; Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) [12]; Ovako Working Analysis System (OWAS) [13]; Corlett [14]; Video film technique for Registration and Analysis of working postures and movements (VIRA) [15]; Posture, Activity, Tools and Handling (PATH) [16]; National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [17]; Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (In Spanish; INSHT) [18]; Snook and Ciriello tables [19]; Key Indicator Method (KIM) [20]; Manual Handling Assessment Charts (MAC) [21]; Liberty Mutual tables [22].
Figure 1. Semi-direct methods according to the cause of the musculoskeletal disorders and their combined use (adapted from Reference [5]). Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) [6]; Job Strain Index (JSI) [7]; Posture and Repetition Risk Factor Index (PRRI) [8]; Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia (In Spanish; IBV) [9]; Occupational Repetitive Action (OCRA) [10]; Method for the identification of musculoskeletal stress factors which may have injurious effects (PLIBEL) [11]; Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA) [12]; Ovako Working Analysis System (OWAS) [13]; Corlett [14]; Video film technique for Registration and Analysis of working postures and movements (VIRA) [15]; Posture, Activity, Tools and Handling (PATH) [16]; National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) [17]; Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (In Spanish; INSHT) [18]; Snook and Ciriello tables [19]; Key Indicator Method (KIM) [20]; Manual Handling Assessment Charts (MAC) [21]; Liberty Mutual tables [22].
Ijerph 17 02635 g001
Ijerph 17 02635 g002 550
Figure 2. Publications by field and by country (see abbreviations Table 2).
Figure 2. Publications by field and by country (see abbreviations Table 2).
Ijerph 17 02635 g002
Ijerph 17 02635 g003 550
Figure 3. Publications by field and by year.
Figure 3. Publications by field and by year.
Ijerph 17 02635 g003
Table
Table 1. Variables, categories, and abbreviation.
Table 1. Variables, categories, and abbreviation.
VariableCategoriesAbbreviation
SectorAgriculture, forestry and fishingA
Manufacturing C
Transportation and storage H
Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activitiesE
Professional, scientific and technical activitiesM
Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods—and services—producing activities of households for own useT
Construction F
EducationP
Human health and social work activitiesQ
Other activitiesOTH
YearItems between 2006 or beforeY1
Items between 2007 and 2010Y2
Items between 2011 and 2013Y3
Items between 2014 and 2016Y4
Items between 2017 and 2019Y5
CountryEurope: United Kingdom, Sweden, Poland, Croatia, Italy, Germany, Portugal and SpainC1
Asia: Israel, Iran, India, South Korea, China, Singapore, Malaysia and TurkeyC2
America: USA, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, Venezuela and CubaC3
Africa: Tunisia and NigeriaC4
Journal--
Table
Table 2. Category frequencies.
Table 2. Category frequencies.
VariableCategoryFrequency%
SectorA2021.98
C22 *24.18
E22.20
F44.40
H44.40
M22.20
OTH1819.78
P11.10
Q1516.48
T33.30
YearY111.10
Y288.79
Y31819.78
Y43032.97
Y534 *37.36
CountryC11718.68
C246 *50.55
C32628.57
C422.20
Journal-91100
* Mode.
Table
Table 3. Human health and social work activities.
Table 3. Human health and social work activities.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[30]Iran 2016REBA with SPSS in the ergonomic assessment of operating room nurses.
[31]Poland 2015Combination of ergonomic assessment methods on nursing and surgery personnel.
[32]Portugal2015REBA on home-care nurses.
[33]Germany2015REBA in comparing GlideScope and Macintosh in the tracheal intubation process.
[34]United Kingdom2017REBA in the gynaecological field.
[35]USA2006REBA for creating a hospital task scoring algorithm
[36]South Korea2019REBA on dental hygienists.
[37]South Korea2014REBA on radiologists.
[38]South Korea2013REBA on dental hygienists.
[39]Canada2008Readapting plans to help overcome bad practice in work activities.
[40]Iran 2013REBA and NMQ (Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms) on the ergonomic assessment of dentists.
[41]Israel2016REBA, NMQ and Karasek on the ergonomic assessment of nurses in hospitals.
[42]Portugal2017REBA on nurses.
[43]Cuba2012REBA and NIOSH for the refitting of a vaccine production centre.
[44]USA2019REBA on otolaryngology surgeons.
Table
Table 4. Agriculture, forestry and fishing.
Table 4. Agriculture, forestry and fishing.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[45]Brazil2015REBA in the collection of ornamental plants.
[46]Italy 2019RULA and REBA on wood chippers in the forestry sector.
[47]India2015REBA on potato growers.
[48]India2012NMQ and REBA on seed collectors.
[49]India2013NMQ, REBA and OWAS in the ergonomic assessment of child potato growers.
[50]Brazil2018REBA in livestock activities.
[51]Malaysia2016NMQ and REBA in oil palm plantations.
[52]Turkey2019OWAS and REBA in wood harvesting in the forestry sector.
[53]Iran2018NMQ and REBA in apple harvesting.
[54]Canada2007Five ergonomic assessment methods in sawmill installations in the forestry sector.
[55]Canada2008Five ergonomic assessment methods in sawmill installations in the forestry sector.
[56]USA2010Five ergonomic assessment methods in sawmill installations in the forestry sector.
[57]Croatia2019ErgoFellow, REBA and OWAS in the ergonomic assessment of forestry machinery use.
[58]India2018Four ergonomic assessment methods in rice cultivation by women.
[59]Israel2016REBA on special greenhouse crops.
[60]Brazil2017REBA in the ergonomic assessment of forestry machinery.
[61]USA2014REBA on tomato cultivation.
[62]Iran2017REBA on dairy production.
[63]Turkey2017Various ergonomic methods on forest nursery workers.
[64]Italy2013Four ergonomic methods in the ergonomic study of forestry machinery use.
Table
Table 5. Manufacturing.
Table 5. Manufacturing.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[65]Nigeria 2016REBA and NMQ on beverage bottlers.
[66]Tunisia2018REBA and RULA in milling, turning and drilling operations.
[67]Turkey 2015REBA and BREBA in the metallurgical sector.
[68]Iran2016REBA in mineral packers.
[69]Venezuela2012REBA and OCRA in electric motor assembly.
[70]Turkey 2017Ergonomic comparison between the Kinect sensor and electrogoniometer to assess posture.
[71]Spain2013REBA and RULA in the metallurgical sector
[72]Turkey2018Creation of an ergonomic assessment questionnaire at Cornell University for the manufacture of harnesses.
[73]Sweden2018REBA in manual collection operations.
[74]United Kingdom2016Research on work practices.
[75]Turkey2018Ergonomic methods in the textile industry.
[76]South Korea2007OWAS, RULA and REBA in the metallurgical sector.
[77]Mexico2015REBA in computer repair.
[78]India2017REBA in sand dredging in Karnataka.
[79]India2019Ergonomic methods in the Sri Lankan textile industry.
[80]India2013RULA and REBA in operations carried out by potters and sculptors.
[81]India2018REBA in brick kiln workers in Rajasthan.
[82]Iran 2017REBA and NMQ in the rubber industry.
[83]India2015Ergonomic methods in the plastic furniture manufacturing industry.
[84]South Korea2016REBA on automotive assembly lines.
[85]Poland2014REBA in the packaging industry.
[86]Iran 2012REBA in an electrical products factory.
Table
Table 6. Transportation and storage.
Table 6. Transportation and storage.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[87]USA2012Ergonomic methods in the transport of people with reduced mobility.
[88]India2016REBA and RULA in industrial vehicle operations.
[89]China2019REBA and RULA on industrial vehicle drivers.
[90]India2018REBA and NMQ in the railway sector.
Table
Table 7. Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities.
Table 7. Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[91]Turkey2015REBA and RULA in waste collection tasks.
[92]Poland2013REBA, Firstbeat and stadiometry in the ergonomic study of solid waste collectors.
Table
Table 8. Professional, scientific and technical activities.
Table 8. Professional, scientific and technical activities.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[93]Italy2017Ergonomic methods used on sales assistants.
[94]USA2015REBA used in the preparation of laboratory samples.
Table
Table 9. Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods—and services—producing activities of households for own use.
Table 9. Activities of households as employers; undifferentiated goods—and services—producing activities of households for own use.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[95]South Korea2012REBA in vacuum cleaning work.
[96]Sweden2015REBA in household chores
[97]Singapore2018REBA used to quantify exposure to musculoskeletal hazards associated with drying clothes
Table
Table 10. Education.
Table 10. Education.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[98]Malaysia2012RULA and REBA on students while performing their schoolwork.
Table
Table 11. Construction.
Table 11. Construction.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[99]India2018Ergonomic methods in the construction sector.
[100]USA2011Ergonomic methods on prefabricated-panel construction workers.
[101]Canada20183D body modelling to reduce musculoskeletal disorders in construction.
[102]China2019Creation of an ergonomic assessment tool to apply the REBA method in construction.
Table
Table 12. Other activities.
Table 12. Other activities.
ReferenceCountryYearObjective
[103]USA2019NMQ and REBA in aircraft maintenance.
[104]Turkey2017OWAS and REBA in an electrical equipment factory
[105]Canada 2012Eight ergonomic assessment methods in various industrial sectors.
[106]India2015REBA applied to women who carry a load of bricks around their necks.
[107]Spain 2017Error detection in the real-life practice of ergonomic assessment methods.
[108]Canada2014REBA in African women who endure head loads during pregnancy.
[109]Brazil 2016REBA in the collection of molluscs.
[110]Brazil 2014Translation of the REBA method into Portuguese.
[111]India2015REBA in bike repair.
[112]India2010Ergonomic assessment methods in three key Jaipur business sectors.
[113]India2010REBA in Jaipur stone carving.
[114]South Korea2017OWAS, RULA and REBA in the ergonomic assessment of armament cleaning.
[115]Poland 2014Comparative analysis of musculoskeletal load assessment methods
[116]USA2019Reliability assessment of the REBA method.
[117]Canada 2013RULA and REBA in the ergonomic assessment of casual work.
[118]Iran2011REBA in an engine oil company.
[119]USA2010REBA, RULA and NIOSH used on firefighters and medical emergency technicians.
[120]USA 2015REBA and RULA used on librarians.
Table
Table 13. Number of publications per scientific journal, knowledge categories (Web of Science), impact factor, rank and quartile (2018).
Table 13. Number of publications per scientific journal, knowledge categories (Web of Science), impact factor, rank and quartile (2018).
JournalP *Impact FactorCategoriesRankQuartile
Work-A Journal of Prevention Assessment and Rehabilitation171.009Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI138/164Q4
Health Promotion Perspectives1No impact factor.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics141.571Ergonomics—SSCI7/16Q2
Engineering, industrial—SCIE28/46Q3
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion10.87Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI146/164Q4
Safety Science13.619Engineering, industrial—SCIE10/46Q1
Operations research and management science—SCIE16/84Q1
Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine1No impact factor.
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries31.000Ergonomics—SSCI13/16Q4
Engineering, manufacturing—SCIE45/49Q4
Global Nest Journal10.869Environmental sciences—SCIE232/251Q4
International Journal on Working Conditions2No impact factor.
Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University30.652Engineering, multidisciplinary—SCIE76/88Q4
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation10.814Orthopedics—SCIE65/76Q4
Rehabilitation—SCIE60/65Q4
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health12.468Environmental Sciences—SCIE112/251Q2
Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI38/164Q1
Public, environmental and occupational health—SCIE67/186Q2
Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine11.568Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI88/164Q3
Public, environmental and occupational health—SCIE120/186Q3
Asia-Pacific Journal of Public Health11.743Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI73/164Q2
Public, environmental and occupational health—SCIE108/186Q3
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics31.377Ergonomics—SSCI9/16Q3
Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI110/164Q3
Journal of Occupational Health11.8Public, environmental and occupational health—SCIE105/186Q3
Cahiers Agricultures10.78Agriculture, multidisciplinary—SCIE38/57Q3
Agronomy—SCIE63/89Q3
Iranian Journal of Public Health11.225Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI122/164Q3
Public, environmental and occupational health—SCIE149/186Q4
Journal of Health and Safety at Work1No impact factor.
Human Factors 12.649Behavioral sciences—SCIE20/53Q2
Engineering, industrial—SCIE18/46Q2
Ergonomics—SSCI2/16Q1
Psychology—SCIE25/77Q2
Psychology, applied—SSCI24/82Q2
Dyna Colombia1No impact factor.
Anaesthesia15.879Anesthesiology—SCIE4/31Q1
Aquacultural Engineering12.143Agricultural, engineering—SCIE5/13Q2
Fisheries—SCIE17/52Q2
Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology12.547Obstetrics and Gynecology- SCIE25/83Q2
International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology10.752Materials science, textiles—SCIE12/24Q2
Applied Ergonomics32.610Ergonomics—SSCI3/16
Psychology, applied—SSCI25/82
Engineering, industrial—SCIE20/46
Medycyna Pracy10.778Public, environmental and occupational health—SCIE171/186Q4
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health20.973Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI141/164Q4
Public, environmental and occupational health—SCIE165/186Q4
International Journal of Dental Hygiene11.233Dentistry, oral surgery and medicine—SCIE68/91Q3
Ergonomics12.181Engineering, industrial—SCIE21/46Q2
Ergonomics—SSCI5/16Q2
Psychology—SCIE38/77Q2
Psychology, applied—SSCI35/82Q2
Journal of Physical Therapy Science20.392Rehabilitation—SCIE61/64Q4
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy11.879Orthopedics—SCIE38/76Q2
Rehabilitation—SCIE27/65Q2
Seefor-South-East European Forestry1No impact factor.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management22.734Construction and Building Technology—SCIE15/63Q1
Engineering, civil -SCIE32/132Q1
Engineering, industrial -SCIE17/46Q2
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing11.779Engineering, manufacturing33/49Q3
Engineering, mechanical—SCIE64/129Q2
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research1No impact factor.
Journal of Chemical Health and Safety1No impact factor.
Design Journal1No impact factor.
Indian Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine1No impact factor.
Biosystems Engineering12.983Agricultural engineering -SCIE4/13Q2
Agriculture, multidisciplinary -SCIE7/57Q1
International Journal of Workplace Health Management1No impact factor.
Revista Arvore10.367Forestry—SCIE64/67Q4
Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action10.64Public, environmental and occupational health—SSCI153/164Q4
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine1No impact factor.
Fresenius Environmental Bulletin10.691Environmental Sciences—SCIE240/251Q4
Laryngoscope12.343Medicine, research and experimental- SCIE78/136Q3
Otorhinolaryngology—SCIE12/42Q2
Logforum1No impact factor.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering1No impact factor.
Health Scope1No impact factor.
Journal of Research in Health Sciences1No impact factor.
* Mode; P = Publications number.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hita-Gutiérrez, M.; Gómez-Galán, M.; Díaz-Pérez, M.; Callejón-Ferre, Á.-J. An Overview of REBA Method Applications in the World. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2635. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17082635

AMA Style

Hita-Gutiérrez M, Gómez-Galán M, Díaz-Pérez M, Callejón-Ferre Á-J. An Overview of REBA Method Applications in the World. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(8):2635. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17082635

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hita-Gutiérrez, Manuel, Marta Gómez-Galán, Manuel Díaz-Pérez, and Ángel-Jesús Callejón-Ferre. 2020. "An Overview of REBA Method Applications in the World" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 8: 2635. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph17082635

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop