MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095538436 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00392

Prevalence of chronic musculoskeletal pain among active and retired military personnel: a systematic review protocol

2020· review· en· W3095538436 on OpenAlexaff
Julián Reyes-Vélez, Lynn Shaw, Heidi Lund, Alexandra Heber, Linda VanTil

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsVeterans Affairs CanadaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineData extractionCritical appraisalNarrative reviewSystematic reviewChronic painContext (archaeology)Military servicePopulationMilitary personnelScientific literaturePeer reviewPhysical therapyLow back painProtocol (science)Musculoskeletal injuryMusculoskeletal painMEDLINEAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthPathologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess the prevalence of musculoskeletal chronic pain among active and retired members of military forces and to characterize potential factors that could influence the frequency of musculoskeletal chronic pain. INTRODUCTION: Inherent to military occupations is a diverse source of occupational hazards that affect the well-being of individuals at any stage of their military career (active and retired). Chronic pain may result from the continuous exposure to physically demanding tasks and other risks. Moreover, chronic pain has been associated with other comorbidities, including mental health conditions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Scientific papers in French or English reporting on chronic pain derived from a musculoskeletal cause in active and retired military personnel will be considered. There will be no restriction on participants' country, age, or length of service. METHODS: The published literature will be identified by exploring biomedical, pharmacological, and physiology bibliographic databases. The unpublished literature will be located through the search of thesis and gray literature repositories. This review will follow the condition-context-population approach and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The extracted data will include any detail about the anatomic location, diagnosis, types of studies, and risk factors. The review will follow JBI methods of critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis for reviews containing prevalence data. If enough evidence is found, meta-regression analysis will performed, otherwise a narrative review will be completed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020153704.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.404 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207