MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920828889 · doi:10.1007/s00296-019-04273-0

Real-world incidence and prevalence of low back pain using routinely collected data

2019· review· en· W2920828889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francis Fatoye, Tadesse Gebrye, I. Odeyemi

Bibliographic record

VenueRheumatology International · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRheumatologyIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineEpidemiologyLow back painPhysical therapyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem among adults of working age population, and its prevalence or incidence increases with increasing in age. The purpose of this review was to examine the real-world prevalence or incidence of LBP. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA guideline. Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, SportDiscuss and Scopus electronic databases were searched using specifically developed search strategies to identify studies using patients' electronic medical records published in English up to February 2019. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a tool that consists of ten items addressing a risk of bias. The search yielded 756 published studies, of which 13 were deemed relevant and were included in this review. The included studies reported incidence or prevalence data from Canada, United States of America (USA), Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Israel, and Netherlands. All the included studies were assessed to be methodologically sound (low risk of bias). The prevalence and incidence of LBP ranged from 1.4 to 20.0% and 0.024-7.0%, respectively. Three studies reported that the Odds of LBP in male patient was higher than their female counterparts (odds ratio > 1; range 1.11-17.29). Nine studies identified the risk factors of LBP to be age, sex, and race. The remaining four studies also listed high intensity of physical activity, high spinal load, lifting, bending, and twisting as the risk factors for LBP. The results of this study highlighted there is a substantial difference within studies that estimated the prevalence and incidence of LBP. This finding could inform healthcare policy makers to critically examine the data sources of prevalence and incidence studies; this in return might help for resource allocation to manage the condition.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017078598, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.190
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.190
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0250.027
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations408
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRheumatology InternationalSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207