Revised NIOSH lifting equation: a critical evaluation

References

• Arjmand N, Amini M, Shirazi-adl A, et al. Revised NIOSH lifting equation may generate spine loads exceeding recommended limits. Int J Ind Ergon. 2015;47(1):1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2014.09.010
   Google Scholar
• Pinder AD, Frost GA. Prospective evaluation of the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation. Derbyshire: HSE books; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Afshari D, Kord S, Latifi SM, et al. The adequacy of NIOSH equation to determine the rate of stresses exerted on the back based on compressive force estimation. Jundishapur J Heal Sci. 2017;9(1):4–9.
   Google Scholar
• Dagenais S, Caro J, Haldeman S. A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J. 2008;8(1):8–20. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barim MS, Sesek RF, Capanoglu MF, et al. Improving the risk assessment capability of the revised NIOSH lifting equation by incorporating personal characteristics. Appl Ergon. 2019;74:67–73. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okimoto MLLR, Teixeira ER. Proposed procedures for measuring the lifting task variables required by the revised NIOSH lifting equation – a case study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009;39(1):15–22. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2008.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, et al. Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics. 1993;36(7):749–776. doi:10.1080/00140139308967940
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey PG. Usability of the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Ergonomics. 2002;45(12):817–828. doi:10.1080/00140130210159977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beek AJ VD, Mathiassen SE, Windhorst J, et al. An evaluation of methods assessing the physical demands of manual lifting in scaffolding. Appl Ergon. 2005;36(2):213–222. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2004.10.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang MJ, Garg A, Chang YC, et al. The relationship between low back discomfort ratings and the NIOSH lifting index. Hum Factors. 1998;40(3):509–515. doi:10.1518/001872098779591377
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townley AC, Hair D. Beyond NIOSH: alternative methods for quantifying lifting hazards. In: 7-10 June Las Vegas, Nevada, ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition; 2004. p. 1–2.
   Google Scholar
• Cole SS, McGlothlin J. Ergonomics case study: revised NIOSH lifting equation instruction issues for students. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2009;6(11):D73–D81. doi:10.1080/15459620903249695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey PG, Burdorf A, Fathallah FA, et al. Influence of measurement accuracy on the application of the 1991 NIOSH equation. Appl Ergon. 2001;32:91–99. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00026-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters TR, Baron SL, Kemmlert K. Accuracy of measurements for the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Appl Ergon. 1998;29(6):433–438. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(98)00015-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu M-L, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, et al. Evaluation of the impact of the revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Lifting Equation. Hum Factors. 2016;58(5):667–682. doi:10.1177/0018720815623894
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jäger M, Luttmann A. Critical survey on the biomechanical criterion in the NIOSH method for the design and evaluation of manual lifting tasks. Int J Ind Ergon. 1999;23(4):331–337. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(98)00049-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim HK, Zhang Y. Estimation of lumbar spinal loading and trunk muscle forces during asymmetric lifting tasks: application of whole-body musculoskeletal modelling in OpenSim. Ergonomics. 2017;60(4):563–576. doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1191679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elfeituri FE, Taboun SM. An evaluation of the NIOSH lifting equation: a psychophysical and biomechanical investigation. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2002;8(2):243–258. doi:10.1080/10803548.2002.11076527
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu SP. Maximum acceptable weights for asymmetric lifting of Chinese females. Appl Ergon. 2003;34(3):215–224. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(03)00010-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu S-P. Psychophysically determined symmetric and asymmetric lifting capacity of Chinese males for one hour’s work shifts. Int J Ind Ergon. 2000;25(6):675–682. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(99)00055-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christian M, Fernandez JE, Marley RJ. Using the revised NIOSH lifting equation in the Mexican workplace: biomechanical, physiological, and psychophysical differences ; 13-14 October San Francisco, USA 5th annual world conference of the society for industrial and systems enginnering2016. p. 283–289.
   Google Scholar
• Lee YH, Chen YL. An isometric predictor for maximum acceptable weight of lift for Chinese men. Hum Factors. 1996;38(4):646–653. doi:10.1518/001872096778827242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu SP. Maximum acceptable weight of lift by Chinese experienced male manual handlers. Appl Ergon. 1997;28(4):237–244. doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00080-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ardiyanto A, Wirasadha DA, Wulandari NW, et al. An investigation of the maximum acceptable weight of lift by Indonesian inexperienced female manual material handlers. Adv Intell Syst Comput. 2018;820:169–178.
   Google Scholar
• Afshari D, Latifi SM, Kord S, et al. Assessment of low back disorders risk based on allowable weight limits for manual lifting in Iran. Ind Health. 2018;56(4):327–335. doi:10.2486/indhealth.2017-0174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KS, Park HS. Assessment of validity of applying the revised NIOSH weight limit of lifts to Korean young male population: psychophysical approach. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. 1995;39(10):714–7.
   Google Scholar
• Lee KS, Park HS, Chun YH. The validity of the revised NIOSH weight limit in a Korean young male population: a psychophysical approach. Int J Ind Ergon. 1996;18(2–3):181–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maiti R, Ray GG. Determination of maximum acceptable weight of lift by adult Indian female workers. Int J Ind Ergon. 2004;34(6):483–495. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2004.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavender SA, Li YC, Natarajan RN, et al. Does the asymmetry multiplier in the 1991 NIOSH lifting equation adequately control the biomechanical loading of the spine ? Ergonomics. 2009;52(1):71–79. doi:10.1080/00140130802480802
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behjati M, Arjmand N. Biomechanical assessment of the NIOSH lifting equation in asymmetric load-handling activities using a detailed musculoskeletal model. Hum Factors. 2019;61(2):191–202. doi:10.1177/0018720818795038
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kee D, Chung MK. Comparison of prediction models for the compression force on the lumbosacral disc. Ergonomics. 1996;39(12):1419–1429. doi:10.1080/00140139608964561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han B, Stobbe TJ, Hobbs GR. The effect of asymmetry on psychophysical lifting capacity for three lifting types. Ergonomics. 2005;48(4):364–379. Doi:10.1080/00140130512331332928
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum MA, Chaffin DB, Page GB. A biomechanical investigation of the asymmetic multiplier in the revised. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. 1995: 709–713.
   Google Scholar
• Lee TH, Cheng TS. Asymmetric lifting capabilities for different container dimensions. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2011;17(2):187–193. doi:10.1080/10803548.2011.11076878
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee T. Effects of range and mode on lifting capability and lifting time. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2012;18(3):387–391. doi:10.1080/10803548.2012.11076941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gooyers CE, Beach TACC, Frost DM, et al. Identifying interactive effects of task demands in lifting on estimates of in vivo low back joint loads. Appl Ergon. 2018;67(August 2017):203–210. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.005
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cruces L, Sciences H, Gym C. Physiological and psychophysical comparison between a lifting task with identical weight but different coupling factors. J Strength Conditining Res. 2010;24(2):307–312. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181c8c84e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mital A, Okolie ST. Influence of container shape,: partitions, frequency, distance, and height level on the maximum acceptable amount of liquid carried by males. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1982;43(11):813–819. doi:10.1080/15298668291410620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y-L, Ho T-K. Psychophysically determining the maximum acceptable weight of lift for polypropylene laminated bags. Ind Health. 2016;54(6):550–553. doi:10.2486/indhealth.2016-0040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavender SA, Andersson GBJ, Schipplein OD, et al. The effects of initial lifting height,: load magnitude, and lifting speed on the peak dynamic L5/S1 moments. Int J Ind Ergon. 2003;31(1):51–59. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(02)00174-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potvin JR. Comparing the revised NIOSH lifting equation to the psychophysical,: biomechanical and physiological criteria used in its development. Int J Ind Ergon. 2014;44(2):246–252. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2013.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dempsey PG. Field investigation of the usability of the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting. 2001: 972–976.
   Google Scholar
• Ciriello VM. The effects of container size, frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting for female industrial workers. Appl Ergon. 2007;38(1):1–5. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2006.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson AS, Borg G, Zhang JJ, et al. Role of physical work capacity and load weight on psychophysical lift ratings. Int J Ind Ergon. 1997;20(3):181–190. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(96)00054-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross M, Dailey ES, Dalton MD, et al. Relationship between lifting capacity and anthropometric measures. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2000;30(5):237–262. doi:10.2519/jospt.2000.30.5.237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marras WS, Fine LJ, Ferguson SA, et al. The effectiveness of commonly used lifting assessment methods to identify industrial jobs associated with elevated risk of low-back disorders. Ergonomics. 1999;42(1):229–245. doi:10.1080/001401399185919
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung SS, Deddens J, Genaidy AM, et al. Theoretical and experimental evaluation of the multiplicative lifting equation and the general lifting index. Occup Ergon. 2006;6(1):13–24. doi:10.3233/OER-2006-6102
   Google Scholar
• Maiti R, Bagchi TP. Effect of different multipliers and their interactions during manual lifting operations. Int J Ind Ergon. 2006;36(11):991–1004. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2006.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plamondon A, Larivière C, Delisle A, et al. Relative importance of expertise, lifting height and weight lifted on posture and lumbar external loading during a transfer task in manual material handling. Ergonomics. 2012;55(1):87–102. doi:10.1080/00140139.2011.634031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batish A, Bhattacharya A, Singh B. Multi-response optimization and empirical modeling of cardiopulmonary responses during manual lifting tasks. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2011;21(1):29–43. doi:10.1002/hfm.20211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh N, Belokar RM, Walia RS. Physiological evaluation of manual lifting tasks on Indian male workers. Int J Eng Adv Technol. 2012;2(1):8–16.
   Google Scholar
• Kapellusch JM, Garg A, Boda S, et al. Association between lifting and use of medication for low back pain: results from the backworks prospective cohort study. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(8):867–877. doi:10.1097/JOM.0000000000000197
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen LL, Sundstrup E, Brandt M, et al. Factors associated with high physical exertion during manual lifting: cross-sectional study among 200 blue-collar workers. Work. 2018;59(1):59–66. doi:10.3233/WOR-172655
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dolan P, Earley M, Adams MA. Bending and compressive stresses acting on the lumbar spine during lifting activities. J Biomech. 1994;27(10):1237–1248. doi:10.1016/0021-9290(94)90277-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh J, Kalra P, Walia RS. Study of manual material handling tasks using Taguchi technique. In: October 19-20, Faridabad, Haryana, India, Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering; 2012. p. 690–696.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Ashaik RA, Ramadan MZ, Al-saleh KS, et al. Effect of safety shoes type,: lifting frequency, and ambient temperature on subject’s MAWL and physiological responses. Int J Ind Ergon. 2015;50:43–51. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2015.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafez HA, Ayoub MM. A psychophysical study of manual lifting in hot environments. Int J Ind Ergon. 1991;7(4):303–309. doi:10.1016/0169-8141(91)90076-X
   Google Scholar
• Singh RP, Batish A, Singh TP, et al. An experimental study to evaluate the effect of ambient temperature during manual lifting and design of optimal task parameters. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2014;24(1):54–70. doi:10.1002/hfm.20353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh J, Kalra P, Walia RS. Study of maximum acceptable weight of lift for Indian male industrial workers. Int J Eng Res Technol. 2012;1(9):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Lee TH. Psychophysically determined asymmetrical lifting capabilities for different frequencies and containers. Ind Health. 2005;43(2):337–340. doi:10.2486/indhealth.43.337
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehi Sahl Abadi A, Nasl Saraji G, Mazloumi A, et al. Changes in back compressive force when measuring maximum acceptable weight of lift in Iranian male students. Iran J Public Health. 2016;45(9):1199–1207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciriello VM. The effects of box size,frequency and extended horizontal reach on maximum acceptable weights of lifting. Int J Ind Ergon. 2003;32:115–120. doi:10.1016/S0169-8141(03)00045-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potvin JR, Bent LR. NIOSH equation horizontal distances associated with the Liberty Mutual (Snook) lifting table box widths. Ergonomics. 1997;40(6):650–655. doi:10.1080/001401397187946
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox RR, Lu M-L, Occhipinti E, et al. Understanding outcome metrics of the revised NIOSH lifting equation. Appl Ergon. 2019;81:1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson AS, Sekula BK. The influence of strength and gender on defining psychophysical lift capacity. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.  1999: 723–727.
   Google Scholar
• Garg A, Boda S, Milwaukee W, et al. The NIOSH lifting equation and low-back pain, part 2: association with seeking care in the BackWorks Prospective Cohort Study. Hum Factors. 2014;56(1):6–28. doi:10.1177/0018720813486669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo J, Genaidy A, Karwowski W, et al. A comprehensive lifting model: beyond the NIOSH lifting equation. Ergonomics. 1997;40(9):916–927. doi:10.1080/001401397187748
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciriello VM, Snook SH. A study of size,: distance, height, and frequency effects on manual handling tasks. Hum Factors. 1983;25(5):473–483. doi:10.1177/001872088302500502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harari Y, Bechar A, Riemer R. Spinal moments during continuous sequential lifting, carrying, and lowering. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2017;61(1):991–992. doi:10.1177/1541931213601729
   Google Scholar
• Muslim E, Iadha Nuraini A, Puspasari MA. Analysis of vertical multiplier on revised National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lifting equation for male workers in Indonesia industry. Curr Trends Eng. 2013;10:236–242.
   Google Scholar
• Kranz C, Lee K, Jadhav P, et al. Kinematic and perceptual responses in heavy lifting and pulling: are there differences between males and females? Appl Ergon. 2021;90(September 2020):1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Lindbeck L, Kjellberg K. Gender differences in lifting technique. Ergonomics. 2001;44(2):202–214. doi:10.1080/00140130120142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu M, Waters TR, Krieg E, et al. Efficacy of the revised NIOSH lifting equation to predict risk of low-back pain associated with manual lifting: a one-year prospective study. Hum Factors. 2014;56(1):73–85. doi:10.1177/0018720813513608
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamid ASM, Tamrin SBM. A proposed recommended weight limit for lifting activities among young Asian adults. Malaysian J Hum Factors Ergon. 2016;1(1):62–67.
   Google Scholar
• Plamondon A, Larivière C, Denis D, et al. Sex differences in lifting strategies during a repetitive palletizing task. Appl Ergon. 2014;45(6):1558–1569. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2014.05.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagnon D, Plamondon A, Larivière C. A comparison of lumbar spine and muscle loading between male and female workers during box transfers. J Biomech. 2018;81:76–85. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2018.09.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciriello VM, Maikala R V, Dempsey PG, et al. Gender differences in psychophysically determined maximum acceptable weights and forces for industrial workers observed after twenty years. Int Arch Occup Env Heal. 2011;84(5):569–575. doi:10.1007/s00420-010-0589-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marras WS, Davis KG, Jorgensen M. Gender influences on spine loads during complex lifting. Spine J. 2003;3(2):93–99. doi:10.1016/S1529-9430(02)00570-3
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Plamondon A, Larivi C, Denis D, et al. Difference between male and female workers lifting the same relative load when palletizing boxes. Appl Ergon. 2017;60:93–102. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.10.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler EM, Graham RB, Stevenson JM, et al. Gender difference and lifting technique under light load conditions: a principal component analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2013;14(2):159–174. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2011.611264
   Google Scholar
• Sheppard PS, Stevenson JM, Graham RB. Sex-based differences in lifting technique under increasing load conditions: a principal component analysis. Appl Ergon. 2016;54:186–195. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.12.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez R, Bouffard J, Michaud B, et al. Sex differences in upper limb 3D joint contributions during a lifting task. Ergonomics. 2019;62(5):682–693. doi:10.1080/00140139.2019.1571245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jebens E, Mamen A, Medbø JI, et al. Are elderly construction workers sufficiently fit for heavy manual labour? Ergonomics. 2015;58(3):450–462. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.977828
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny GP, Groeller H, Mcginn R, et al. Age, human performance, and physical employment standards. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(6):S92–S107. doi:10.1139/apnm-2015-0483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girish N, Rauf I, Vivek K. Influence of age on lifting capacity among manual materials handlers. Work. 2018;60(1):163–168. doi:10.3233/WOR-182713
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen JA, Dickerson CR, Wells RP, et al. Older females in the workforce – the effects of age on psychophysical estimates of maximum acceptable lifting loads. Ergonomics. 2017;60(12):1708–1717. doi:10.1080/00140139.2017.1335883
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song J, Qu X. Effects of age and its interaction with task parameters on lifting biomechanics. Ergonomics. 2014;57:653–668. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.897376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song J, Qu X. Age-related biomechanical differences during asymmetric lifting. Int J Ind Ergon. 2014;44(5):629–635. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2014.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson AS, Ross RM. Methods and limitations of assessing functional work capacity objectively. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 1996;6(3):265–276. doi:10.3233/BMR-1996-6307
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sangachin MG, Cavuoto LA. Obesity-related changes in prolonged repetitive lifting performance. Appl Ergon. 2016;56:19–26. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.03.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh D, Park W, Hwang D, et al. Severe obesity effect on low back biomechanical stress of manual load lifting. Work. 2015;51(2):337–348. doi:10.3233/WOR-141945
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Corbeil P, Plamondon A, Handrigan G, et al. Biomechanical analysis of manual material handling movement in healthy weight and obese workers. Appl Ergon. 2019;74:124–133. Doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battevi N, Pandolfi M, Cortinovis I. Variable lifting index for manual-lifting risk assessment: a preliminary validation study. Hum Factors. 2016;58(5):712–725. doi:10.1177/0018720816637538
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters TR, Lu M-L, Piacitelli LA, et al. Efficacy of the revised NIOSH lifting equation to predict risk of low back pain due to manual lifting: expanded cross-sectional analysis. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(9):1061–1067. doi:10.1097/JOM.0b013e31822cfe5e
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waters TR, Baron SL, Piacitelli LA, et al. Evaluation of the revised NIOSH lifting equation: a cross-sectional epidemiologic study. Spine. 1999;24:386–395. doi:10.1097/00007632-199902150-00019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdallah S, Genaidy A, Karwowski W, et al. Theoretical basis for general lifting equations based on mechanical work performed during manual lifting. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2005;6(6):551–564. doi:10.1080/14639220500076421
   Google Scholar
• Kee D, Lee I. Relationships between subjective and objective measures in assessing postural stresses. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(2):277–282. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin CJ, Wang SJ, Chen HJ. A field evaluation method for assessing whole body biomechanical joint stress in manual lifting tasks. Ind Health. 2006;44(4):604–612. doi:10.2486/indhealth.44.604
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boda SV, Bhoyar P, Garg A. Validation of revised NIOSH lifting equation and 3D SSP model to predict risk. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society meeting. 2010: 1185–1189.
   Google Scholar
• Karwowski W, Gaddie P. Simulation of the 1991 revised NIOSH. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 1995: 699–703.
   Google Scholar
• Sesek R, Gilkey D, Drinkaus P, et al. Evaluation and quantification of manual materials handling risk factors. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2003;9(3):271–287. doi:10.1080/10803548.2003.11076568
   PubMedGoogle Scholar