A Review of the Association Between Cigarette Smoking and the Development of Nonspecific Back Pain and Related Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY DESIGN: A structured review of the epidemiologic literature was performed. Thirty-eight studies published in peer-reviewed journals were reviewed. The methodologic strengths and weaknesses of the studies were described and assessed qualitatively. Four studies were excluded because of difficulties in design or interpretation. OBJECTIVES: To provide a systematic analysis of the literature to assess the evidence as to whether smoking is associated with the prevalence and incidence of nonspecific back pain and related outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Evidence has been gathering regarding the association of smoking with nonspecific back pain and other back disorders, but a comprehensive summary and evaluation of the data have not been published. RESULTS: Positive associations between current smoking and nonspecific back pain were found in 18 of 26 studies in men and 18 of 20 studies in women. For sciatica and herniated discs, there were four of eight and one of five positive studies in men and women, respectively. The majority of these studies were cross-sectional (18 in men and 16 in women), with only a handful of prospective studies. Positive associations between past smoking and nonspecific back pain were reported in five of nine studies in men and five of six studies in women. In addition, increases in the prevalence and/or incidence of nonspecific back pain were found in the majority of studies in which level of consumption was analyzed and reported. An attempt was made to assess whether these results could be artifactual arising from selection bias, confounding bias, publication bias, or errors in measurement. As well, the biologic mechanisms were summarized that have been suggested by various investigators. CONCLUSIONS: The available data are consistent with the notion that smoking is associated with the incidenceand prevalence of nonspecific back pain, but there are too few studies to make any conclusions for the other end points (e.g., sciatica, herniated discs). It cannot be ruled out that the association is a statistical artifact arising from either selection or confounding factors, because the evidence for nonspecific low back pain derives mostly from cross-sectional studies. In addition, it cannot be stated unequivocally that smoking preceded back pain. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to eliminate the possibility that chronic back pain preceded smoking, to better estimate dose-response correlations, and to perform biologic measurements to elucidate possible mechanisms.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,023 | 0,024 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».