Geographic locations are similar for studies. Employment type was similar

between {Selleck Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleck Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleck Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleck Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleckchem Antiinfection Compound Library|Selleckchem Anti-infection Compound Library|Selleckchem Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library|buy Anti-infection Compound Library|Anti-infection Compound Library ic50|Anti-infection Compound Library price|Anti-infection Compound Library cost|Anti-infection Compound Library solubility dmso|Anti-infection Compound Library purchase|Anti-infection Compound Library manufacturer|Anti-infection Compound Library research buy|Anti-infection Compound Library order|Anti-infection Compound Library mouse|Anti-infection Compound Library chemical structure|Anti-infection Compound Library mw|Anti-infection Compound Library molecular weight|Anti-infection Compound Library datasheet|Anti-infection Compound Library supplier|Anti-infection Compound Library in vitro|Anti-infection Compound Library cell line|Anti-infection Compound Library concentration|Anti-infection Compound Library nmr|Anti-infection Compound Library in vivo|Anti-infection Compound Library clinical trial|Anti-infection Compound Library cell assay|Anti-infection Compound Library screening|Anti-infection Compound Library high throughput|buy Antiinfection Compound Library|Antiinfection Compound Library ic50|Antiinfection Compound Library price|Antiinfection Compound Library cost|Antiinfection Compound Library solubility dmso|Antiinfection Compound Library purchase|Antiinfection Compound Library manufacturer|Antiinfection Compound Library research buy|Antiinfection Compound Library order|Antiinfection Compound Library chemical structure|Antiinfection Compound Library datasheet|Antiinfection Compound Library supplier|Antiinfection Compound Library in vitro|Antiinfection Compound Library cell line|Antiinfection Compound Library concentration|Antiinfection Compound Library clinical trial|Antiinfection Compound Library cell assay|Antiinfection Compound Library screening|Antiinfection Compound Library high throughput|Anti-infection Compound high throughput screening| studies reporting an effect and those who did not. Average sample sizes were found to be similar. There are differences in the average baseline response with an average of 67 % for studies reporting no effect compared to 44 % for those reporting an effect but average attrition rates are similar. All studies employed multivariable analysis. The average follow-up time was 2.3 years (3 months LBH589 clinical trial to 6 years) for studies reporting no effect compared to 6 years (2–10 years) for studies that do report an effect. Employment social support and recovery from back pain In total, 13 studies report 19 findings on the association between work support and return to work (RTW) for those with back pain. Overall, 11 findings report no association, 7 findings report associations whereby lower levels of work support delay RTW or recovery status and 1 study reports a weak reverse effect (Table 1). Of the findings of effect supporting an association between low work support and delays in RTW, 4 were judged as weak, 1 as moderate and 2 of strong effect. Co-worker support (CWS) In mTOR inhibitor total, 4 studies report effects, 2 finding an association that lower levels of CWS delay RTW status (Mielenz

et al. 2008; van den Heuvel et al. 2004), 1 reporting a reverse effect (Schultz et al. 2004) and 1 reporting no association (Helmhout et al. 2010). All studies were judged to have used an adequate measure Protirelin of CWS. The assessment of LBP varied between studies: the study finding no association (Helmhout et al. 2010) using recurring LBP in the previous 4 weeks, the study reporting a reverse effect (Schultz et al.) measuring pain and disability in the previous 6 months, and the 2 studies reporting a positive association using biomechanical assessment (Mielenz et al. 2008) and presence of LBP in the previous 12 months (van den Heuvel et al. 2004). Geographic

locations were similar for all studies. The 2 studies that report an association drew their samples from general workers, whereas the study reporting no association used a military sample, and the study reporting a reverse effect recruited general workers on current compensation for their LBP. Average sample size was larger for the studies reporting an association (1,042 vs. 190), and they also report a greater average response rate (88 vs. 32 %). Average follow-up response rates were lower for the 2 studies reporting an association (69 %) compared to 85 % for the Schultz et al. (2004) study; Helmhout et al. (2010) failed to report on attrition. Multivariable statistical testing was used by studies reporting an association, the study who reported no association and the study who found a reverse effect both used univariable analysis.