Incidence and prognosis of mid‐back pain in the general population: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite being common early in life and affecting individuals' quality of life to the same degree as neck and low back pain, research into epidemiological aspects of mid-back pain (MBP) has been scarce. The purpose of our systematic review was therefore to describe the incidence and prognosis of MBP in the general population. The PRISMA Statement guided the study process. DATABASES: A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, PEDro, PsycINFO and Scopus. RESULTS: Of 3194 unique records identified, seven were included in our qualitative synthesis. The 3-month and 2-year incidence proportions of MBP in children and adolescents were approximately 4% and 50%, respectively. In adults, the 1-month incidence proportion was less than 1%. The persistence or recurrence of MBP over a 1- to 4-year period was between 13% and 45% in children and adolescents; a change in spinal pain location over time was common. Individuals reporting MBP have an increased risk of future care seeking compared with people without musculoskeletal complaints. No studies assessing adult MBP recovery trajectories or prognostic factors were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about the incidence and prognosis of MBP in the general population is limited. The incidence of MBP in children and adolescents seems to be similar to the incidence of neck and low back pain; in adults, it is lower than that of neck and low back pain. Studies investigating recovery trajectories of MBP in adults and prognostic factors for MBP are lacking. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: The incidence of mid-back pain (MBP) in young individuals is similar to that of neck and low back pain, and ≤50% report persistent pain; however, the evidence base is limited. Knowledge about adult trajectories and prognostic factors for MBP is lacking.
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".