Does back pain prevalence really decrease with increasing age? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is believed that the prevalence of back pain decreases around the middle of the sixth decade. However, back pain is still among the most commonly reported symptoms in the elderly and osteoarthritis, disc degeneration, osteoporosis and spinal stenosis all increase with age. In light of this, it is difficult to understand why the prevalence of back pain would decrease with increasing age. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed at summarising the scientific evidence on the trends of back pain prevalence with age. METHODS: Population-based studies reporting the prevalence of back pain, including people aged 65 years and over, were systematically retrieved from several bibliographic databases. These were read and assessed by two reviewers, and papers retained ('good quality studies') were aggregated according to specific criteria. RESULTS: Good quality studies showed a large heterogeneity as to their methods and prevalence figures. No specific patterns were detected by country nor outcome measure. However, most studies that considered severe forms of back pain found an increase of prevalence with increasing age. The curvilinear association between age and back pain prevalence that is widely mentioned in the literature was found only for benign and mixed problems. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence concerning the association of back pain prevalence with age is more sparse than currently believed and this association seems to be modified by the severity of the problem. This knowledge could have important public health implications, as the proportion of older people will increase considerably in the coming years in most industrialised societies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".