The search Cytoskeletal Signaling inhibitor terms for PubMed and Embase are listed in “”Appendix A”" and were based on the PubMed prognosis filter and the search terms for work as suggested by Schaafsma et al. (2006). After checking for duplicates, the following learn more inclusion criteria were applied to the title and abstract by two reviewers (PK

and VG or MFD): The paper is a primary study; The population of interest are employees with MSDs; The study design is a prospective or retrospective cohort study or an intervention study (in the latter case, the data of the group tested with a performance-based measure were used); The paper describes a reliable physical test of performance; The outcome measure is work participation such as in return to work, or being employed, or a surrogate like the termination of a disability claim; The result of a physical test of performance is statistically related to the outcome measure; The paper is written in English, Dutch, German, French, or Italian. If title and abstract did not provide enough information to decide whether the inclusion criteria were met, the full paper was checked. Next, the inclusion criteria were applied to the full paper. When doubts existed about PFT�� price whether a paper fulfilled the inclusion criteria, one other researcher (VG or MFD) was consulted and a decision was made based on consensus. Finally, the references of the included papers were also checked for other

potentially relevant papers. Quality description The quality description of the selected studies was based on an established criteria Carbohydrate list for assessing the validity of prognostic studies, as recommended by Altman (2001) and modified by Scholten-Peeters et al. (2003) and Cornelius et al. (2010). This list consisted of 16 items, each having yes/no/don’t know answer options. This modified criteria

list is presented in “”Appendix B”". The quality of all included studies was independently scored by two reviewers (PK, VG). If the study complied with the criterion, the item was rated with one point. If the study did not comply with the criterion or when the information was not described or unclear, then the item was rated with zero points. In case of disagreement, the two reviewers came to a decision through mutual agreement. For the total quality score, all points of each study were added together (maximum score is 16 points). Studies achieving a score of at least 13 points (≥81%) were considered to be of good quality, at least 9 (56%) and a maximum of 12 points (75%) of moderate quality, and those with 8 points (50%) or less of low quality. Data extraction Data were extracted by the first author using a standardized form (PK). The following information was extracted as follows: primary author, year of publication, country, study design (cohort (retrospective or prospective) or intervention), characteristics of the population (i.e.