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 OpenAlex

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

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.122
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