Potential risk factors and triggers for back pain in children and young adults. A scoping review, part II: unclear or mixed types of back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Back pain is a global problem in terms of disability and financially, with a large burden both to the individual and to society. Back pain was previously believed to be uncommon in children. However, there is a growing body of evidence that this is not the case. Objective: Part I of this scoping review studied risk factors of incident and episodic back pain. In this part II we aimed to identify all risk factors and triggers with unclear or mixed type back pain in young people and to identify any gaps in the literature. Methods: A scoping review design was selected to summarise the evidence, as there are many studies on "risk factors" for back pain. The scoping review followed the PRISMSA-ScR guidelines. We considered all studies that tested potential risk factors and triggers for thoracic and/or lumbar spine pain, in children, adolescents, and young adults (≤ 24 years). PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to September 2018, to identify relevant English language articles. The results regarding potential risk factors were separated into temporal precursors and bidirectional risk factors and the studies were classified by study design. Results: Our comprehensive search strategy identified 7356 articles, of which 83 articles were considered eligible for this review (part II). There were 53 cross-sectional studies and 30 cohort studies. Potential risk factors for back pain were: female sex, older age, later pubertal status, positive family history of back pain, increased growth, and a history of back pain, most of which are temporal precursor variables. There was limited research for the illness factors, spinal posture, and muscle endurance in the development of back pain. Conclusion: Many of the included studies approached risk factors in similar ways and found factors that were associated with back pain but were not obvious risk factors as causality was uncertain. Future research should be more rigorous and innovative in the way that risk factors are considered. This could be through statistical approaches including cumulative exposures, or longitudinal approaches including multi-trajectory methods. Additionally, data on proposed risk factors should be collected before the onset of back pain.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".