(1998) and Laestadius et al. (2008). Furthermore, it has to be noted that we used as reference the scores from a working selleck chemicals llc population in Germany to study functional impairment. There might be differences between the Dutch and the German population with respect to this issue, but we do not have indications for that. Aublet-Cuvelier et al. (2006) performed a follow-up study on the course of work-related upper extremity disorders during three consecutive years at a household appliance assembly company (n = 459). They found a relatively stable annual prevalence of 20–24% and a high annual incidence

(9.8–13.5%) of cases and of annual recoveries (37.0–44.3%). The number of annual recoveries compares well with the favourable course in our study. Feleus et al. (2007)

reported that 42% of a working population (n = 473) with non-traumatic complaints of the arm, neck and shoulder still reported complaints after 6 months. This compares to our finding that complaints had decreased in 33% of the patients after 6 months of follow-up. Cheng et al. (2002) found significant improvements in the SF-36 physical functioning and bodily pain scores after a physical therapy (PT) intervention, but noted a variation in outcomes across injury regions. Patients with elbow disorders needed more physiotherapy care and did not improve in the SF-36 physical role domain compared to shoulder and Selleckchem MAPK Inhibitor Library wrist/hand groups (Cole and Hudak 1996). We concluded that the results of several studies on the course C1GALT1 of work-related upper

extremity disorders seem to be generally comparable to our findings. An interesting finding in our study was that the average VAS score of the general quality of life did not change, but the VAS quality of life scores with respect to health did increase. This might indicate that the functionality of the upper extremity does not have a major contribution to general quality of life. Reitsma (1999) considered the possibility of follow-up studies linked to registries. He concluded that in most registries follow-up or historical information is not recorded, is short term or is missing and that the role of registries can be extended by creating longitudinal data. This can be done either by record linkage of existing data or by sample projects. This type of information is important in order to set priorities for preventive policy and to monitor the effects of policy interventions. The impact of diseases in terms of severity and duration has to be taken into account in policy making. Furthermore, trends can be monitored not only on the incidence of diseases but also on their course and consequences. If appropriate data can be obtained, the monitoring of economic costs could be added to the set of monitoring instruments. Further research can be performed on the use of registries and related sample projects for preventive policy.