MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754450997 · doi:10.1186/s12912-017-0243-1

Prevalence of low back pain in Iranian nurses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2754450997 on OpenAlexaff
Yosra Azizpour, Ali Delpisheh, Zahra Montazeri, Kourosh Sayehmiri

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersStudent Research Committee, Tabriz University of Medical SciencesIlam University
KeywordsMedicineLow back painScopusMeta-analysisPhysical therapyMarital statusMEDLINESample size determinationAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain (LBP) as a musculoskeletal disorder is one of the most common occupational injuries in nurses but there isn’t any valid measure of the prevalence of LBP in Iranian nursing. In order to increase the power and improve the estimates of the prevalence of LBP in Iranian nurses, a comprehensive meta-analysis was carried out. A summary measure of all studies conducted in this field was found and distributions of LBP were evaluated based on different variables. Inclusion criteria included articles with prevalence of LBP in Iranian nurses, who had at least six months of work experience without any trauma, injuries to spine, or any underlying disease. The keywords“prevalence, low back pain, nurses”, and “Iran” were used as part of this search. Databases such as Pubmed, Web of Science, Science direct, Scopus, IranMedex, Irandoc, Magiran, SID, CIVILICA, IMEMR and Google scholar were searched up to and including 15 June 2016. For data extraction a form was designed that included the following variables: Author names, province, sample size, age, gender, marital status, work experience, body mass index, job type, smoking status, work schedule, year of publication, type of standard questionnaire, prevalence of LBP, studies’ quality score and climate classifications. Data analysis was carried out using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed by using the I 2 and Q tests. In all 1250 articles were identified and 22 articles with 9347 participants met the inclusion criteria for meta-analyses after filtering. The prevalence of low back pain during their working life and during the last year, was estimated at 63% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 57.4–68.5) and 61.2% (95% CI: 55.7–66.7) respectively. The prevalence rate of this disorder was 58.7% (95% CI: 35.8–81.7) and 60.4% (95% CI: 52.2–68.6) among men and women respectively. Furthermore, prevalence’s of LBP were 59.5% in wards nurses, 50.3% in operating room technicians, and 39.4% in aid nurses. The results showed the high prevalence of LBP injury in nurses, especially female nurses. The effect of musculoskeletal disorders such as LBP may be reduced by considering proper observation of the principles of ergonomics in the workplace, performing physical examinations on a regular basis, identifying risk factors in the advancement of musculoskeletal disorders and then trying to fix them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.031
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NursingSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207