Work-relatedness of low back pain in nursing personnel: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although non-specific low back pain (LBP) is known to be multifactorial, studies from across the globe have documented their higher prevalence in nurses. This systematic review was conducted to ascertain whether this much-documented association constitutes a causal relationship, and whether there is a discernible threshold of exposures associated with this elevated risk. METHODS: PRISMA guidelines were followed and standard critical appraisal tools were applied. The outcome of interest was non-specific LBP or back injury; exposure was "performing nursing duties." Applicable studies, published in English during 1980-2012, were identified through database searches, screened against preset inclusion/exclusion criteria. Ergonomic assessments of nursing tasks were included along with epidemiological studies. Bradford Hill considerations for causation were utilized as a framework for discussing findings. FINDINGS: Of 987 studies identified, 89 qualified for inclusion, comprising 21 longitudinal, 36 cross-sectional analytic, 23 descriptive biomechanical/ergonomic, and 9 review studies. Overall studies showed that nursing activities conferred increased risk for, and were associated with back disorders regardless of nursing technique, personal characteristics, and non-work-related factors. Patient handling appears to confer the highest risk, but other nursing duties are also associated with elevated risk, and confound dose-response assessments related to patient handling alone. Associations were strong, consistent, temporally possible, plausible, coherent, and analogous to other exposure-outcomes, with risk estimates ranging from 1·2 to 5·5 depending on definitions. A threshold of nursing activities below which the risk of back disorders is not elevated has not been established. INTERPRETATION: Notwithstanding the bio-psycho-social nature of LBP, and complexities of studying this area, sufficient evidence exists of a causal relationship between nursing tasks and back disorders to warrant new policies.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".