Analytical comparison of selected international tools for the risk assessment of upper-limbs biomechanical overload in repetitive tasks

This study compared eight upper-extremity risk assessment tools applied to five different manual tasks. The aim is to provide users with insight into how the tools compare and to contribute to the ongoing revision of the ISO 11228-3 Standard. Eight upper limbs risk assessment tools were compared (ACGIH® HA, DUET, EAWS4, HARM, OCRA index, OCRA checklist, RSI, and RULA). The predictive or concurrent validity of each tool was described and considered. Tool merits and limitations, such as underestimating high action frequencies, static postures, or upper limb areas to study, were described. The ability of the tools to distinguish risk levels was examined. All tools differentiated the risk level of the five tasks, except HARM and RULA, which showed similar risk levels for all tasks. Suggestions are provided to prospective users for choosing tools appropriate to their application, with an emphasis on predictive validity to ensure more reliable risk assessment results. The objective of this paper is to provide guidance on the selection of the most suitable tools. The authors compared eight tools (ACGIH® HA, DUET, EAWS4, HARM, OCRA index, OCRA checklist, RSI, and RULA) by applying them to five representative tasks. A tool with good predictivity is more likely to provide reliable results in terms of risk assessment.