Do Patients of Chronic Low Back Pain have Psychological Comorbidities?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Individuals with chronic pain have been reported to have an increased incidence of psychological morbidities. We aimed to examine the prevalence of anxiety, depression, disability, alexithymia, insomnia, and sleep quality in patients having chronic low back pain (LBP) and study their association with the severity of pain and any disability arising from it. Methods This descriptive study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital setting. Fifty adults with nonspecific LBP of > 6-week duration were included. Study instruments employed were patient health questionnaire-9 for depression, generalized anxiety disorder-7 for anxiety, visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI) to assess disability, Toronto alexithymia scale-20 for alexithymia, and insomnia severity index and Pittsburgh sleep quality index for insomnia. Descriptive results were expressed as numbers, means, and proportions. Association study between variables was performed using Fisher’s exact test. Results Mean ODI score was 31.54% (95% CI, 26.09–36.99); mean VAS score was 6.08 (95% CI, 5.35–6.81). Insomnia of varying severity was found in 29 patients. Sleep quality was reported as good by 23 patients. One patient had alexithymia. There was significant association between the level of disability and depression, anxiety, insomnia, and sleep quality. The severity of pain had significant association with insomnia but the association with anxiety, depression, alexithymia, and sleep quality was not significant. Conclusions Patients with chronic LBP do have associated psychological comorbidities of varying extent. A “patient-centric” approach when treating patients with chronic LBP is necessary, so that appropriate evaluation of psychiatric and psychosocial comorbidities, sleep problems, and quality of life is done as part of their routine management to ensure the desired outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".