Global prevalence of hospital admissions for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To determine the proportion of low back pain presentations that are admitted to hospital from the emergency department (ED), the proportion of hospital admissions due to a primary diagnosis of low back pain and the mean hospital length of stay (LOS), globally.Methods
We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to July 2022. Secondary data were retrieved from publicly available government agency publications and international databases. Studies investigating admitted patients aged >18 years with a primary diagnosis of musculoskeletal low back pain and/or lumbosacral radicular pain were included.Results
There was high heterogeneity in admission rates for low back pain from the ED, with a median of 9.6% (IQR 3.3-25.2; 9 countries). The median percentage of all hospital admissions that were due to low back pain was 0.9% (IQR 0.6-1.5; 30 countries). The median hospital LOS across 39 countries was 6.2 days for 'dorsalgia' (IQR 4.4-8.6) and 5.4 days for 'intervertebral disc disorders' (IQR 4.1-8.4). Low back pain admissions per 100 000 population had a median of 159.1 (IQR 82.6-313.8). The overall quality of the evidence was moderate.Conclusion
This is the first systematic review with meta-analysis summarising the global prevalence of hospital admissions and hospital LOS for low back pain. There was relatively sparse data from rural and regional regions and low-income countries, as well as high heterogeneity in the results.
SUBMITTER: Melman A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10124269 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Global prevalence of hospital admissions for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Melman Alla A Lord Harrison J HJ Coombs Danielle D Zadro Joshua J Maher Christopher G CG Machado Gustavo C GC
BMJ open 20230421 4
<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine the proportion of low back pain presentations that are admitted to hospital from the emergency department (ED), the proportion of hospital admissions due to a primary diagnosis of low back pain and the mean hospital length of stay (LOS), globally.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and LILACS from inception to July 2022. Secondary data were retrieved from publicly available government agency publications and international ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Evidence regarding the adverse burden of severe neonatal jaundice (SNJ) in hospitalized neonates in resource-constrained settings is sparse. We attempted to determine the prevalence of SNJ, described using clinical outcome markers, in all World Health Organization (WHO) regions in the world. Data were sourced from Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, African Journals Online, and Global Index Medicus. Hospital-based studies, including the total number of neonatal admissions with at least one clinical outcome marker of SNJ, defined as acute bilirubin encephalopathy (ABE), exchange blood transfusions (EBT), jaundice-related death, or abnormal brainstem audio-evoked response (aBAER), were independently reviewed for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Of 84 articles, 64 (76.19%) were from low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), and 14.26% of the represented neonates with jaundice in these studies had SNJ. The prevelance of SNJ among all admitted neonates varied across WHO regions, ranging from 0.73 to 3.34%. Among all neonatal admissions, SNJ clinical outcome markers for EBT ranged from 0.74 to 3.81%, with the highest percentage observed in the African and South-East Asian regions; ABE ranged from 0.16 to 2.75%, with the highest percentages observed in the African and Eastern Mediterranean regions; and jaundice-related deaths ranged from 0 to 1.49%, with the highest percentage observed in the African and Eastern Mediterranean regions. Among the cohort of neonates with jaundice, the prevalence of SNJ ranged from 8.31 to 31.49%, with the highest percentage observed in the African region; EBT ranged from 9.76 to 28.97%, with the highest percentages reported for the African region; ABE was highest in the Eastern Mediterranean (22.73%) and African regions (14.51%). Jaundice-related deaths were 13.02%, 7.52%, 2.01% and 0.07%, respectively, in the Eastern Mediterranean, African, South-East Asian and European regions, with none reported in the Americas. aBAER numbers were too small, and the Western Pacific region was represented by only one study, limiting the ability to make regional comparisons. The global burden of SNJ in hospitalized neonates remains high, causing substantial, preventable morbidity and mortality especially in LMICs.
| S-EPMC10253859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain may be having a significant impact on emergency departments around the world. Research suggests low back pain is one of the leading causes of emergency department visits. However, in the peer-reviewed literature, there has been limited focus on the prevalence and management of back pain in the emergency department setting. The aim of the systematic review was to synthesize evidence about the prevalence of low back pain in emergency settings and explore the impact of study characteristics including type of emergency setting and how the study defined low back pain.MethodsStudies were identified from PubMed and EMBASE, grey literature search, and other sources. We selected studies that presented prevalence data for adults presenting to an emergency setting with low back pain. Critical appraisal was conducted using a modified tool developed to assess prevalence studies. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression explored the influence of study-level characteristics on prevalence.ResultsWe screened 1187 citations and included 21 studies, reported between 2000 and 2016 presenting prevalence data from 12 countries. The pooled prevalence estimate from studies of standard emergency settings was 4.39% (95% CI: 3.67-5.18). Prevalence estimates of the included studies ranged from 0.9% to 17.1% and varied with study definition of low back pain and the type of emergency setting. The overall quality of the evidence was judged to be moderate as there was limited generalizability and high heterogeneity in the results.ConclusionThis is the first systematic review to examine the prevalence of low back pain in emergency settings. Our results indicate that low back pain is consistently a top presenting complaint and that the prevalence of low back pain varies with definition of low back pain and emergency setting. Clinicians and policy decisions makers should be aware of the potential impact of low back pain in their emergency settings.
| S-EPMC5379602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine factors associated with hospital admissions from ED presentations for low back pain (LBP).MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 147 ED centres in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, between 2005 and 2014. Data were accessed from the NSW Emergency Department Data Collection to determine patients who attended ED and whether or not they were admitted to hospital.ResultsThere were 1 388 078 ED visits for LBP across 147 different ED centres between 2005 and 2014. Between 2005 and 2013, hospital admission rates from ED visits for LBP increased annually by 5.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-6.4) from 477 per 100 000 in 2005 to 730 per 100 000 in 2013. Patients who were under injured workers' insurance (i.e. workers compensation insurance) had significantly lower odds (odds ratio [OR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.40-0.43) of being admitted to hospital for LBP compared with those not on injured workers' insurance. Patients living in the highest socioeconomic areas were also more likely to be admitted to hospital from an ED visit, compared with those from the lowest socioeconomic areas (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.24-1.29).ConclusionRates of hospitalisation following attendance to ED for LBP increased annually by 5% between 2005 and 2013. Hospital admission rates were lower among patients from the lowest socioeconomic areas or under injured workers' compensation insurance.
| S-EPMC9540465 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRunning is one of the most popular sports worldwide. Despite low back pain (LBP) represents the most common musculoskeletal disorder in population and in sports, there is currently sparse evidence about prevalence, incidence and risk factors for LBP among runners. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate among runners: prevalence and incidence of LBP and specific risk factors for the onset of LBP.MethodsA systematic review has been conducted according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. The research was conducted in the following databases from their inception to 31st of July 2019: PubMed; CINAHL; Google Scholar; Ovid; PsycINFO; PSYNDEX; Embase; SPORTDiscus; Scientific Electronic Library Online; Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The checklists of The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools were used to investigate the risk of bias of the included studies.ResultsNineteen studies were included and the interrater agreement for full-text selection was good (K = 0.78; 0.61-0.80 IC 95%). Overall, low values of prevalence (0.7-20.2%) and incidence (0.3-22%) of LBP among runners were reported. Most reported risk factors were: running for more than 6 years; body mass index > 24; higher physical height; not performing traditional aerobics activity weekly; restricted range of motion of hip flexion; difference between leg-length; poor hamstrings and back flexibility.ConclusionsPrevalence and incidence of LBP among runners are low compared to the others running related injuries and to general, or specific population of athletes. View the low level of incidence and prevalence of LBP, running could be interpreted as a protective factor against the onset of LBP.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018102001.
| S-EPMC7271446 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeA growing body of research indicates a correlation between occupational exposure, particularly among individuals in driving-related occupations, and the incidence of low back pain (LBP).MethodsDatabases were systematically searched, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SinoMed, from their inception through December 2023 for relevant studies of the prevalence and risk factors of LBP among professional drivers. Subsequent meta-analyses were performed utilizing Stata 17.0 and RevMan 5.4 software, while risk factor indicators were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence quality grading system.ResultsA systematic review and meta-analysis comprising 19 studies involving 7,723 patients indicated that the incidence of LBP among drivers was 39% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.57) in the past 7 days and 53% (95% CI 0.43-0.63) in the past 12 months. A subgroup analysis revealed a prevalence of 48% (95% CI 0.33-0.64) in 2005-2015 and 56% (95% CI 0.42-0.70) in 2016-2023. Among the identified factors, robust evidence highlighted age ≥ 41 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.10; 95% CI 1.36-3.24; P = 0.0008), alcohol consumption (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.31-2.34; P = 0.0001), sleeping < 6 h/night (OR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.13-2.24; P = 0.007), uncomfortable seating (OR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.23-2.36; P = 0.001), improper driving posture (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.91-2.94; P < 0.00001), and manual handling (OR = 2.23; 95% CI 1.72-2.88; P < 0.00001) as significant risk factors for LBP. There was moderate evidence of a lack of exercise (OR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.37-2.31; P < 0.0001), working > 10 h/day (OR = 2.49; 95% CI 1.89-3.28; P < 0.00001), > 5 years' driving experience (OR = 2.12; 95% CI 1.66-2.69; P < 0.00001), a lack of back support (OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.25-2.62; P = 0.002), high work-related pressure (OR = 2.04; 95% CI 1.59-2.61; P < 0.00001), and job dissatisfaction (OR = 1.57; 95% CI 1.23-2.01; P = 0.0003) as moderate risk factors. There was no evidence of body mass index or smoking as risk factors for LBP among professional drivers.ConclusionThe current evidence indicates an increasing annual trend in the prevalence of LBP among professional drivers. Factors including age ≥ 41 years, alcohol consumption, and sleeping < 6 h/night were among the 12 influential factors contributing to LBP in professional drivers. Enhancing awareness of these factors and formulating targeted preventive strategies may be beneficial.
| S-EPMC11382477 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCo-occurring musculoskeletal pain is common among people with persistent low back pain (LBP) and associated with more negative consequences than LBP alone. The distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent LBP has not been systematically described, which hence was the aim of this review.MethodsLiterature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus. We considered observational studies from clinical settings or based on cohorts of the general or working populations involving adults 18 years or older with persistent LBP (≥4 wks) and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain for eligibility. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by independent reviewers. Results are presented according to study population, distribution and location(s) of co-occurring pain.ResultsNineteen studies out of 5744 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from high-income countries in Europe, USA and Japan. A total of 34,492 people with persistent LBP were included in our evidence synthesis. Methods for assessing and categorizing co-occurring pain varied considerably between studies, but based on the available data from observational studies, we identified three main categories of co-occurring pain - these were axial pain (18 to 58%), extremity pain (6 to 50%), and multi-site musculoskeletal pain (10 to 89%). Persistent LBP with co-occurring pain was reported more often by females than males, and co-occurring pain was reported more often in patients with more disability.ConclusionsPeople with persistent LBP often report co-occurring neck pain, extremity pain or multi-site pain. Assessment of co-occurring pain alongside persistent LBP vary considerable between studies and there is a need for harmonisation of measurement methods to advance our understanding of how pain in different body regions occur alongside persistent LBP.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068807 .
| S-EPMC7814622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesLow back pain (LBP) has a major impact on health workers, and its prevalence and risk factors among them in Saudi Arabia have been investigated previously. However, the results have never been comprehensively reviewed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature to identify the prevalence and risk factors of LBP among health workers in Saudi Arabia.MethodsMEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Saudi peer-reviewed journals were searched for relevant literature. After quality assessment of the eligible articles, 18 studies targeting seven occupational categories, with a total number of 5345 health workers, were analyzed.ResultsPooled prevalence rates of 40.8% (n = 7 studies), 65.0% (n = 13 studies), and 81.4% (n = 2 studies) were obtained for week, year, and career, respectively, across all professional groups. Nurses and physical therapists were more susceptible to LBP, in that order, than the other categories considering week and career periods. Age, body mass index, and female gender were the most commonly reported individual risk factors. Occupational risk factors mainly included work-related activities requiring back bending and twisting, lifting and pulling objects, and manual patient-handling.ConclusionsThe results of this review indicate that LBP is highly prevalent among health workers in Saudi Arabia when compared with international rates. Proper prophylactic measures are necessary to reduce LBP and minimize its consequences. Further high-quality research is needed in different Saudi regions to achieve a broader understanding of LBP prevalence and causes.
| S-EPMC7382437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethnopharmacological relevanceTibetan traditional medicine CheeZheng Pain-Relieving Plaster (CZPRP) is frequently used as an over-the-counter external analgesic for musculoskeletal pain; however, its evidence for low back pain (LBP) has not been evaluated.Aim of the studyThis study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of CZPRP for both acute, subacute and chronic LBP through a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Materials and methodsPubMed, CENTRAL, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang databases were searched through April 20, 2020 for randomized controlled trials of CZPRP for LBP. Eligible comparators were placebo, active treatment, or usual care. Clinical outcomes included pain severity, lower back function score, pain-free rate, and adverse events (AEs). Qualitative evaluations were conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools. Quantitative analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.ResultsThis study includes 1674 LBP patients from nine clinical studies. Pooled analyses among subjects with acute LBP show 1) significant pain reductions (mean difference -0.84, 95% confidence interval[CI] -1.31, -0.37) in CZPRP plus diclofenac versus diclofenac, 2) significant improvements in lower back function (standard mean difference -1.50, 95% CI -2.16, -0.85) in CZPRP versus diclofenac, and 3) a higher pain-free rate in CZPRP alone (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.16, 1.89; I2 = 61%) or CZPRP plus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (risk ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.14, 2.40; I2 = 0%) versus NSAIDs. However, in a heterogeneous population with mixed LBP subtypes, there was no significant difference in pain outcomes between CZPRP and diclofenac. Additionally, CZPRP use did not increase AEs compared with no CZPRP (p = 0.40). All nine studies are associated with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsThe use of CZPRP is associated with improved acute LBP outcomes compared to diclofenac. However, due to the moderate to high risk of bias of the studies, future rigorous randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effects of CZPRP for acute and chronic LBP.
| S-EPMC9254726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLow back pain (LBP) has a significant impact on the general population, especially on military personnel. This study aimed to systematically review the relevant literature to determine the prevalence and risk factors of low back pain among military personnel from different military occupational categories.MethodsFor this systematic review, we searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane. We performed study selection, data extraction, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the adapted risk of bias assessment tool by Hoy et al. This review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This study is registered on the Center for Open Science, registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HRGE8.ResultsOut of 860 papers, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. More than 360 000 military people with lumbar pain situation were considered for inclusion in this systematic review. The 1-year prevalence of LBP could be up to 81.7% in the Army, 5.2% in the Marines, and 48.1% in the Air Force. Age (OR = 0.494-2.89), history of LBP (OR = 2.2-8.91), and sedentary position (OR = 0.55-3.63) were the most common physical, sociodemographic, and occupational risk factors, respectively.ConclusionsLow back pain was prevalent among military personnel. There was heterogeneity in studies and a significant difference in prevalence and incidence across various occupational categories. Physical, sociodemographic, and occupational risk factors were researched more than psychological risk factors in the military.
| S-EPMC11457804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases in the elderly, which has a severe impact on the health of the elderly. However, CLBP treatment is very challenging, and more effective treatment methods are needed. Myofascial release may be an effective therapy for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. It is widely used clinically to treat CLBP, but its clinical efficacy is still controversial. Objective: This study aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of myofascial release for patients with CLBP. Methods: We selected PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE database, and Web of Science database articles published until April 5, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of myofascial release for CLBP were included. Outcome measures included pain, physical function, quality of life, balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, and mental health. For each outcome, Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 375) were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the overall efficacy of myofascial release for CLBP was significant, including two aspects: pain [SMD = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.67, -0.08), I 2 = 46%, P = 0.01] and physical function [SMD = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.75, -0.12), I 2 = 44%, P = 0.007]. However, myofascial release did not significantly improve quality of life [SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.64), I 2 = 53%, P = 0.62], balance function [SMD = 0.58, 95% CI (-0.49, 1.64), I 2 = 82%, P = 0.29], pain pressure-threshold [SMD = 0.03,95% CI (-0.75, 0.69), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.93], trunk mobility [SMD = 1.02, 95% CI (-0.09, 2.13), I 2 = 92%, P = 0.07] and mental health [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83, 0.71), I 2 = 73%, P = 0.88]. Conclusions: In this study, we systematically reviewed and quantified the efficacy of myofascial release in treating CLBP. The meta-analysis results showed that myofascial release significantly improved pain and physical function in patients with CLBP but had no significant effects on balance function, pain pressure-threshold, trunk mobility, mental health, and quality of life. However, due to the low quality and a small number of included literature, more and more rigorously designed RCTs should be included in the future to verify these conclusions.
| S-EPMC8355621 | biostudies-literature