MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079610484 · doi:10.1177/2150131913479385

An Epidemiologic Analysis of Low Back Pain in Primary Care

2013· article· en· W2079610484 on OpenAlex
Abdülbari Bener, Elnour E. Dafeeah, Khalid A. Alnaqbi, Omar Falah, Taha Aljuhaisi, Alhassan Sadeeq, Shehryar Khan, Josia Schlogl

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Primary Care & Community Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHamad Medical CorporationQatar Foundation
KeywordsMedicineLow back painOverweightEpidemiologyBody mass indexBack painPrimary carePhysical therapyCross-sectional studyDemographyInternal medicineFamily medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is one of the most common conditions for which patients seek medical care. AIM: The aim of the study was to study the epidemiology of low back pain in primary care setting with emphasis on frequency, sociodemographic factors, and impact of low back pain on lifestyle habits. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. A representative sample of 2742 patients was approached and 2180 subjects agreed to participate in this study (79.5%). The survey was conducted among primary health care visitors during the period from March to October 2012. The questionnaire collected the sociodemographic characteristics, lifestyle habits, and type of treatment taken for relief from recruited subjects. RESULTS: Of the subjects studied, 52.9% were males and 47.1% were females. The prevalence of low back pain in the study sample was 59.2%. Low back pain was more prevalent among women (67.7%) than among men (51.6%). The proportion of low back pain was highest in the age-group 45 to 55 years in both the genders (37.6% and 36.4%, respectively). Nearly half of the men (45.7%) and women (45.2%) with low back pain were overweight with a significant difference (P < .001). More than half of the women with low back pain were housewives (50.4%), whereas most of the men had clerical jobs (36.8%). There was a significant difference observed between men and women in terms of nationality (P < .001), body mass index (P < .001), and occupation (P < .001). Prolonged standing (41.2% vs 29.5%; P < .001) and use of sponge mattress (50.9% vs 45.8%; P .041) was significantly higher among male patients with low back pain compared with females. Coughing/sneezing/straining (9.7% vs 5.9%; P = .01) were more frequent triggering factors in male patients with low back pain as compared with females. CONCLUSION: The study findings revealed that the prevalence of low back pain was higher among women than among men. Low back pain was observed more frequently among older people and among those who were overweight.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it