g., physical work demands, employer characteristics,

social support, health care system, social security system, social benefit). J Standardized or valid measurements  • One point if at least one of the factors of I, excluding age and gender, were reported in a standardized or valid way (for example: questionnaire, structured interview, register, patient-status of occupational/insurance physician). K Data presentation of most important prognostic factors  • One point if frequencies, or percentages, or mean (and standard deviation/confidence interval), or median (and Inter Quartile Range) were reported for the three most important factors of I, namely age, gender and at least one other factor, for the most important Z-VAD-FMK mouse follow-up measurements. Outcome L Clinically relevant outcome measures  • One point if at least one of the following outcome criteria for change was reported: work disability, return to work. M Standardized NOD-like receptor inhibitor or valid measurements

 • One point if one or more of the main outcome measures of L were reported in a standardized or valid way (for example: questionnaire, structured interview, registration, patient status of occupational/insurance physician). N Data presentation of most important outcome measures  • One point if frequencies, or percentages, or mean (and standard deviation/confidence interval), or median (and Inter Quartile Range) were reported for one or more of the main outcomes for the most important follow-up measurements. Analysis O Appropriate univariate crude estimates  • One point if univariate crude estimates (RR, OR, HRR) between prognostic factors separately and outcome were presented  • Zero point if only p-values or wrong association values (Spearman, Pearson, sensitivity) were given, or if no tests were performed at all.   P Appropriate multivariate analysis techniques  • One point if logistic regression analysis was used, or survival analysis for dichotomous outcomes, or linear regression analysis for continuous outcomes  • Zero point if no multivariate techniques were performed at all.

References Altman DG (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations VAV2 of prognostic variables. BMJ 323(7306):224–228CrossRef Bachman S, Oesch PR, Kool JP, Persili S, Knüsel O (2003) Treatment of patients with chronic low back pain in a functional restoration program: work related function parameters, pain parameters and the KPT-8602 price working status after 12 months. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 13:263–270CrossRef Bos J, Kuijer PPFM, Frings-Dresen MHW (2002) Definition and assessment of specific occupational demands concerning lifting, pushing and pulling based on a systematic literature search. Occup Environ Med 59:800–806CrossRef Branton EN, Arnold KM, Appelt SR, Hodges MM, Battie MC, Gross DP (2010) A short-form functional capacity evaluation predicts time to recovery but not sustained return-to-work.