Background: Among the leading causes of work-related disability, musculoskeletal diseases (MSDs) profoundly affect productivity and quality of life. Workplace changes, equipment adjustments, and training courses, among other ergonomic interventions, seek to lower the frequency and degree of MSDs. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether ergonomic interventions help prevent and control MSDs in various workplace environments. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. Inclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated ergonomic interventions against conventional conditions. Effect sizes were computed using mean differences and pooled using a random-effects model in case of heterogeneity. A uniform Excel sheet was used for data extraction. Revman software (Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for statistical analysis. Results: This meta-analysis included 24 RCTs with 4086 workers with different occupations. A meta-analysis of 10 included studies demonstrated lower pain intensity with a mean difference in VAS score between ergonomic interventions and the control group of −0.28 (95%CI: −0.43, −0.14, p = 0.0001). Also, there was a significant reduction in reported MSD-related pain in the lower back with ergonomic interventions with an OR 0.53 (95%CI: 0.40–0.70, p < 0.00001). Moreover, there were statistically significant results for ergonomic interventions in the upper back, ankles, wrists, and neck. In contrast, there were no significant improvements in the thighs, arms, knees, shoulders, and elbows. Conclusions: Our findings support implementing ergonomic strategies as a practical approach to reducing work-related MSDs. However, further research is needed to improve intervention design and long-term effectiveness.

Background: Work-related injuries remain a considerable global burden; nevertheless, progress in occupational safety has been made in decreasing the time to return to work. This study aimed to assess the pooled incidence of Return to Work (RTW) among workers with occupational injuries and to identify the key factors influencing RTW outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus) to include eligible cohorts. Meta-analysis was undertaken using R software 4.5.1 with random-effects models, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. Results: This meta-analysis included 16 cohorts, with 4164 workers. A pooled analysis of 14 studies showed that 79% of workers successfully returned to their jobs after treatment for work-related injuries (95% CI: 0.67–0.88; p < 0.0001; I² = 97.5%). Meta-regression identified age as a significant moderator, with older workers showing a higher incidence of RTW. The mean time to RTW, pooled from 9 studies, was approximately 102 days, with no significant age association (p = 0.222). Regarding predictors, male workers had a significantly higher RTW rate than females (p < 0.0001). Married persons showed greater RTW rates (p < 0.0001). Also, workers with higher education levels were more likely to return to work (p = 0.0033). For injury type, lacerations were related to a greater RTW rate than crushing injuries. Conclusions: This meta-analysis underscored a significant overall return-to-work rate after work-related injuries, with age, sex, marital status, education level, and injury type affecting results. Advanced age and male sex were substantially correlated with increased return-to-work rates. These findings support the necessity for personalized rehabilitation programs and focused support to enhance work reintegration following occupational accidents.