Dataset Information

Can We Trust the Literature on Risk Factors and Triggers for Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review of a Sample of Contemporary Literature.

ABSTRACT: Background:Risk factors (RFs) for the "disease" of low back pain (LBP) are probably different from the triggers of new episodes of LBP. Investigating RFs for the onset of the "disease" and the triggers of LBP is problematic if researchers fail to discern the different types of pain-free status of participants at and before baseline. There is a difference between never having had LBP and having been pain-free for a certain period only. In this review, we assessed the dependability of contemporary literature on RFs and triggers of LBP, in relation to the "disease" and the episodes, respectively. Methods:A literature search from 2010 until 2017 was performed. Information on the definitions of LBP, potential RFs/triggers, and study design was extracted. Studies were reclassified based on the type of LBP concerning the "disease," episode, or mixed/unclear/chronic. RFs and triggers were grouped into major domains, and positive associations listed, respectively, for the "disease" and episodes. Results:In 42 of the included 47 articles, it was not clear if the authors investigated RFs for the "disease" of LBP or triggers of new episodes. Only one study properly reported RFs for the onset of the "disease" of LBP, and four studies were deemed suitable to investigate triggers for a new episode of LBP. No study reproduced the results of other included studies. Conclusion:Trustworthy information regarding RFs and triggers of LBP is rare in the current literature. Future research needs to use precise definitions of LBP (onset of the "disease" vs. episodes) and nominate the timing of the associated factors in relation to the types of LBP as these are two critical factors when studying causes of LBP.

SUBMITTER: Ardakani EM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6535889 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can We Trust the Literature on Risk Factors and Triggers for Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review of a Sample of Contemporary Literature.

Ardakani Emad M EM Leboeuf-Yde Charlotte C Walker Bruce F BF

Pain research & management 20190512

<h4>Background</h4>Risk factors (RFs) for the "<i>disease</i>" of low back pain (LBP) are probably different from the triggers of new episodes of LBP. Investigating RFs for the onset of the "disease" and the triggers of LBP is problematic if researchers fail to discern the different types of pain-free status of participants at and before baseline. There is a difference between never having had LBP and having been pain-free for a certain period only. In this review, we assessed the dependability ...[more]

PMID: 31214272

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost patients in the secondary care sector consulting for low back pain (LBP) seem to have a more or less constant course of pain during the ensuing year. Fewer patients with LBP in the primary care sector report continual pain over a one-year period. However, not much is known about the long-term course of LBP in the general population. A systematic critical literature review was undertaken in order to study the natural course of LBP over time in the general population.MethodsA search of articles was performed in Pubmed, Cinahl and Psychinfo using the search terms 'epidemiology'; 'low back pain' or 'back pain'; 'prospective study' or 'longitudinal study'; 'follow-up', 'natural course', 'course' or 'natural history'; 'general population' or 'working population'. Inclusion criteria were that one of the objectives was to study the course of (L)BP in the adult population, that the period of follow-up was at least 3 months, and that there were three points of observation or more. The review was undertaken by two independent reviewers using three checklists relating to description of studies, quality and outcomes. The course of LBP was established in relation to those who, at baseline, were reported not to have LBP or to have LBP. Would this course be stable, fluctuating, worsening, or improving over time? A synthesis of results in relation to common patterns was presented in a table and interpreted in a narrative form.ResultsEight articles were included. Articles were different on time span, the number of surveys, and the definition of LBP. In six of the seven relevant studies, for those with no LBP at baseline, relatively substantial stable subgroups of people who continued to be LBP free were identified. In six of the seven relevant studies, definite stable subgroups of continued LBP were noted and improvement (becoming pain free) was never reported to be a common finding.ConclusionThe status of LBP in individuals of the general population appears to be relatively stable over time, perhaps particularly so for those without LBP at baseline.

Project description:Background and objectiveThe current treatments of primary musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP) have a low to moderate efficacy, which might be improved by looking at the contribution of placebo effects. However, the size of true placebo effects in LBP is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were executed of randomized controlled trials investigating placebo effects in LBP.Databases and data treatmentThe study protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews Prospero (CRD42019148745). A literature search (in PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO) up to 2021 February 16th yielded 2,423 studies. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility and risk of bias.ResultsEighteen studies were eligible for the systematic review and 5 for the meta-analysis. Fourteen of the 18 studies were clinical treatment studies, and 4 were experimental studies specifically assessing placebo effects. The clinical treatment studies provided varying evidence for placebo effects in chronic LBP but insufficient evidence for acute and subacute LBP. Most experimental studies investigating chronic LBP revealed significant placebo effects. The meta-analysis of 5 treatment studies investigating chronic LBP depicted a significant moderate effect size of placebo for pain intensity (SMD = 0.57) and disability (SMD = 0.52).ConclusionsThis review shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief in clinical and experimental conditions. The meta-analysis revealed that placebo effects can influence chronic LBP intensity and disability. However, additional studies are required for more supporting evidence and evidence for placebo effects in acute or subacute LBP.SignificanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of true placebo effects in low back pain (LBP). It shows a significant contribution of placebo effects to chronic LBP symptom relief. The results highlight the importance of patient- and context-related factors in fostering treatment effects in this patient group. New studies could provide insight into the potential value of actively making use of placebo effects in clinical practice.

Project description:Study designTwo-year, prospective cohort data from the Japan epidemiological research of occupation-related back pain study in urban settings were used for this analysis.ObjectiveTo examine the association between aggravated low back pain and psychosocial factors among Japanese workers with mild low back pain.Summary of background dataAlthough psychosocial factors are strongly indicated as yellow flags of low back pain (LBP) leading to disability, the association between aggravated LBP and psychosocial factors has not been well assessed in Japanese workers.MethodsAt baseline, 5,310 participants responded to a self-administered questionnaire including questions about individual characteristics, ergonomic work demands, and work-related psychosocial factors (response rate: 86.5%), with 3,811 respondents completing the 1-year follow-up questionnaire. The target outcome was aggravation of mild LBP into persistent LBP during the follow-up period. Incidence was calculated for the participants with mild LBP during the past year at baseline. Logistic regression was used to explore risk factors associated with persistent LBP.ResultsOf 1,675 participants who had mild LBP during the preceding year, 43 (2.6%) developed persistent LBP during the follow-up year. Multivariate analyses adjusted for individual factors and an ergonomic factor found statistically significant or almost significant associations of the following psychosocial factors with persistent LBP: interpersonal stress at work [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.96 and 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.00-3.82], job satisfaction (OR: 2.34, 95%CI: 1.21-4.54), depression (OR: 1.92, 95%CI: 1.00-3.69), somatic symptoms (OR: 2.78, 95%CI: 1.44-5.40), support from supervisors (OR: 2.01, 95%CI: 1.05-3.85), previous sick-leave due to LBP (OR: 1.94, 95%CI: 0.98-3.86) and family history of LBP with disability (OR: 1.98, 95%CI: 1.04-3.78).ConclusionsPsychosocial factors are important risk factors for persistent LBP in urban Japanese workers. It may be necessary to take psychosocial factors into account, along with physical work demands, to reduce LBP related disability.

Project description:BackgroundProprioceptive training (PrT) is popularly applied as preventive or rehabilitative exercise method in various sports and rehabilitation settings. Its effect on pain and function is only poorly evaluated. The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and analyse the existing data on the effects of PrT on pain alleviation and functional restoration in patients with chronic (? 3 months) neck- or back pain.MethodsRelevant electronic databases were searched from their respective inception to February 2014. Randomised controlled trials comparing PrT with conventional therapies or inactive controls in patients with neck- or low back pain were included. Two review authors independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias (RoB). Data extraction was performed by the first author and crosschecked by a second author. Quality of findings was assessed and rated according to GRADE guidelines. Pain and functional status outcomes were extracted and synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively.ResultsIn total, 18 studies involving 1380 subjects described interventions related to PrT (years 1994-2013). 6 studies focussed on neck-, 12 on low back pain. Three main directions of PrT were identified: Discriminatory perceptive exercises with somatosensory stimuli to the back (pPrT, n=2), multimodal exercises on labile surfaces (mPrT, n=13), or joint repositioning exercise with head-eye coordination (rPrT, n=3). Comparators entailed usual care, home based training, educational therapy, strengthening, stretching and endurance training, or inactive controls. Quality of studies was low and RoB was deemed moderate to high with a high prevalence of unclear sequence generation and group allocation (>60%). Low quality evidence suggests PrT may be more effective than not intervening at all. Low quality evidence suggests that PrT is no more effective than conventional physiotherapy. Low quality evidence suggests PrT is inferior to educational and behavioural approaches.ConclusionsThere are few relevant good quality studies on proprioceptive exercises. A descriptive summary of the evidence suggests that there is no consistent benefit in adding PrT to neck- and low back pain rehabilitation and functional restoration.

Project description:CONTEXT::Low back pain is common in golfers. The risk factors for golf-related low back pain are unclear but may include individual demographic, anthropometric, and practice factors as well as movement characteristics of the golf swing. OBJECTIVE::The aims of this systematic review were to summarize and synthesize evidence for factors associated with low back pain in recreational and professional golfers. DATA SOURCES::A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases through September 2017. STUDY SELECTION::Studies were included if they quantified demographic, anthropometric, biomechanical, or practice variables in individuals with and without golf-related low back pain. STUDY DESIGN::Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE::Level 3. DATA EXTRACTION::Studies were independently reviewed for inclusion by 2 authors, and the following data were extracted: characterization of low back pain, participant demographics, anthropometrics, biomechanics, strength/flexibility, and practice characteristics. The methodological quality of studies was appraised by 3 authors using a previously published checklist. Where possible, individual and pooled effect sizes of select variables of interest were calculated for differences between golfers with and without pain. RESULTS::The search retrieved 73 articles, 19 of which met the inclusion criteria (12 case-control studies, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 prospective longitudinal studies). Methodological quality scores ranged from 12.5% to 100.0%. Pooled analyses demonstrated a significant association between increased age and body mass and golf-related low back pain in cross-sectional/case-control studies. Prospective data indicated that previous history of back pain predicts future episodes of pain. CONCLUSION::Individual demographic and anthropometric characteristics may be associated with low back pain, but this does not support a relationship between swing characteristics and the development of golf-related pain. Additional high-quality prospective studies are needed to clarify risk factors for back pain in golfers.

Dataset Information

Can We Trust the Literature on Risk Factors and Triggers for Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review of a Sample of Contemporary Literature.

Publications

Can We Trust the Literature on Risk Factors and Triggers for Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review of a Sample of Contemporary Literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets