Dataset Information

Association between occupational exposures and chronic low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The association between occupational mechanical exposures and chronic low back pain (LBP) has been widely studied, however, few systematic reviews have evaluated the evidence of an association. Furthermore, little is known of the impact of occupational psychosocial exposures on chronic LBP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the association between occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP.

Methods

The study will be conducted as a systematic review using another systematic review published in 2014 as basis and has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with registration number CRD42021281996. A systematic literature search will be performed in 6 scientific databases to identified potential relevant studies published after 2014. Studies will systematically be excluded through a screening process performed independently by 2 reviewers. Exposures will include occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures, and outcome will include chronic LBP (LBP ≥3 months, "degenerative" diseases, and lumbosacral radiculopathy). Study population will include persons in or above working age, and study designs will comprise cohort and case-control studies. The quality of each included study will be methodologically assessed by 2 independent reviewers and level of evidence of an association will be graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. In meta-analyses, effect sizes will be addressed using random-effect models, sensitivity analyses will explore the robustness of the meta-analysis, and heterogeneity assessed.

Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the evidence available of the association between occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP. The review can provide essential knowledge on the association, exposure-response relationships, thresholds, which may pave the way for political decisions on the occupational environment and the labour market insurance policy.

SUBMITTER: Jahn A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10162539 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between occupational exposures and chronic low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jahn Alexander A Andersen Johan Hviid JH Christiansen David Høyrup DH Seidler Andreas A Dalbøge Annett A

PloS one 20230505 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>The association between occupational mechanical exposures and chronic low back pain (LBP) has been widely studied, however, few systematic reviews have evaluated the evidence of an association. Furthermore, little is known of the impact of occupational psychosocial exposures on chronic LBP. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the association between occupational mechanical and psychosocial exposures and chronic LBP.<h4>Methods</h4>The study will b ...[more]

PMID: 37146040

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionChronic low back pain disorders (CLBDs) present a substantial societal burden; however, optimal treatment remains debated. To date, pairwise and network meta-analyses have evaluated individual treatment modes, yet a comparison of a wide range of common treatments is required to evaluate their relative effectiveness. Using network meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments (acupuncture, education or advice, electrophysical agents, exercise, manual therapies/manipulation, massage, the McKenzie method, pharmacotherapy, psychological therapies, surgery, epidural injections, percutaneous treatments, traction, physical therapy, multidisciplinary pain management, placebo, 'usual care' and/or no treatment) on pain intensity, disability and/or mental health in patients with CLBDs.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases and reference lists of 285 prior systematic reviews were searched. Eligible studies will be randomised controlled/clinical trials (including cross-over and cluster designs) that examine individual treatments or treatment combinations in adult patients with CLBDs. Studies must be published in English, German or Chinese as a full-journal publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data, and, where feasible, network meta-analyses will be performed. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance, including the network meta-analysis extension (PRISMA-NMA). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analysis will be implemented for assessing the quality of the findings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review of the published data. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42020182039.

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.

Project description:BackgroundTrials on sling exercise (SE), commonly performed to manage chronic low back pain (LBP), yield conflicting results. This study aimed to review the effects of SE on chronic LBP.MethodsThe randomized controlled trials comparing SE with other treatments or no treatment, published up to August 2013, were identified by electronic searches. Primary outcomes were pain, function, and return to work. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated, using a random-effects model.ResultsRisk of bias was rated as high in 9 included trials, where some important quality components such as blinding were absent and sample sizes were generally small. We found no clinically relevant differences in pain or function between SE and other forms of exercise, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture. Based on two trials, SE was more effective than thermomagnetic therapy at reducing pain (short-term: WMD -13.90, 95% CI -22.19 to -5.62; long-term: WMD -26.20, 95% CI -31.32 to -21.08) and improving function (short-term: WMD -10.54, 95% CI -14.32 to -6.75; long-term: WMD -25.75, 95% CI -30.79 to -20.71). In one trial we found statistically significant differences between SE and physical agents combined with drug therapy (meloxicam combined with eperisone hydrochloride) but of borderline clinical relevance for pain (short-term: WMD -15.00, 95% CI -19.64 to -10.36) and function (short-term: WMD -10.00; 95% CI -13.70 to -6.30). There was substantial heterogeneity among the two trials comparing SE and thermomagnetic therapy; both these trials and the trial comparing SE with physical agents combined with drug therapy had serious methodological limitations.InterpretationBased on limited evidence from 2 trials, SE was more effective for LBP than thermomagnetic therapy. Clinically relevant differences in effects between SE and other forms of exercise, physical agents combined with drug therapy, traditional Chinese medical therapy, or in addition to acupuncture could not be found. More high-quality randomized trials on the topic are warranted.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective was to investigate the effectiveness of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) in the management of people with chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and explore the variability in available trials to understand the factors which may affect the effectiveness of the intervention.MethodsA systematic review with meta-analyses was conducted. Four databases were searched from inception to October 12, 2023. Randomized controlled trials investigating CFT compared with any control group in patients with nonspecific LBP were included. Mean difference and 95% CIs were calculated for pain, disability, and pain self-efficacy. Certainty of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.ResultsSeven trials were included. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT was effective for disability at short, medium, and long term time points compared with alternate treatments, including usual care. Low to moderate certainty of evidence was found that CFT is effective for pain in the short and medium terms and probably in the long term. There was high certainty evidence CFT was effective in increasing pain self-efficacy in the medium and long terms. A single study found CFT was cost-effective compared with usual care. Variability was found in the training and implementation of CFT across the included trials, which may contribute to some heterogeneity in the results.ConclusionThe results show promise in the use of CFT as an intervention likely to effectively manage disability, pain, and self-efficacy in people with chronic nonspecific LBP. The number of clinicians trained, their experience, and quality of training (including competency assessment) may be important in achieving optimal effectiveness.ImpactThis is the most comprehensive review of CFT to date and included investigation of between-trial differences. CFT is a promising intervention for chronic LBP and high-quality synthesis of evidence of its effectiveness is important for its clinical application.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the long term effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain.DesignSystematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesElectronic searches of Cochrane Back Review Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases up to February 2014, supplemented by hand searching of reference lists and forward citation tracking of included trials.Study selection criteriaTrials published in full; participants with low back pain for more than three months; multidisciplinary rehabilitation involved a physical component and one or both of a psychological component or a social or work targeted component; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was delivered by healthcare professionals from at least two different professional backgrounds; multidisciplinary rehabilitation was compared with a non- multidisciplinary intervention.ResultsForty one trials included a total of 6858 participants with a mean duration of pain of more than one year who often had failed previous treatment. Sixteen trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.37; equivalent to 0.5 points in a 10 point pain scale) and disability (0.23, 0.06 to 0.40; equivalent to 1.5 points in a 24 point Roland-Morris index) compared with usual care. Nineteen trials provided low quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation decreased pain (standardised mean difference 0.51, -0.01 to 1.04) and disability (0.68, 0.16 to 1.19) compared with physical treatments, but significant statistical heterogeneity across trials was present. Eight trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation improves the odds of being at work one year after intervention (odds ratio 1.87, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.53) compared with physical treatments. Seven trials provided moderate quality evidence that multidisciplinary rehabilitation does not improve the odds of being at work (odds ratio 1.04, 0.73 to 1.47) compared with usual care. Two trials that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation with surgery found little difference in outcomes and an increased risk of adverse events with surgery.ConclusionsMultidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation interventions were more effective than usual care (moderate quality evidence) and physical treatments (low quality evidence) in decreasing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. For work outcomes, multidisciplinary rehabilitation seems to be more effective than physical treatment but not more effective than usual care.

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and recurrent conditions in the general population, with personal, professional, social and economic impact. However, there is a lack of consistent evidence about chronic low back pain (CLBP) prognosis, especially highlighting predictors that influence CLBP outcome. Existing systematic reviews are scarce, outdated and incomplete. The primary aim of this systematic review is to identify multivariable models and/or predictors associated with clinical outcomes in subjects with CLBP (namely pain intensity, disability, return to work, psychological well-being and quality of life).MethodsWe will systematically search Ovid MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus and Web of Science databases for longitudinal studies, published until June 2017, including adults with CLBP (defined as persistent pain with ≥ 3 months duration), which studied the association between multivariable models and/or predictors with at least one of the selected clinical outcomes after ≥ 3 months of follow-up. Articles' screening and selection will be conducted by two reviewers, blindly and independently. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Models' discriminative ability will be assessed using C-statistic. The link between multivariable models and predictors with the clinical outcome will be analysed through association measures. Qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the available evidence will be performed. Meta-analysis will be conducted to aggregate each type of measure. In the absence or in the presence of only slight to moderate of heterogeneity, we will use the fixed or random effects model, respectively. In case of moderate to severe heterogeneity, an attempt to explain variability in detail will be made through subgroups and sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analysis will be conducted according to clinical outcome, follow-up duration (≤ 6 months versus > 6 months) and type of context (pain management clinics versus other therapeutic settings).DiscussionWe consider that it is urgent to highlight the available evidence about CLBP prognosis. This systematic review will help identify multivariable models and individual predictors that may enhance pain management success. One potential limitation will be the difficulty of aggregating quantitative measures from several prognostic models and predictors, with different clinical outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017079233.

Dataset Information

Association between occupational exposures and chronic low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods

Discussion

Publications

Association between occupational exposures and chronic low back pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets