Which biopsychosocial factors are associated with the development of chronic musculoskeletal pain? Protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent systematic reviews have identified many biopsychosocial factors associated with the development of chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP). Despite often being specific to a particular musculoskeletal condition, findings are similar across systematic reviews. Research is needed to aggregate these findings to identify consistent factors across musculoskeletal disorders that are associated with the development of CMP. The objective of this study is to provide a meta-level synthesis of all biopsychosocial factors associated with the development of CMP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An umbrella review and meta-level narrative synthesis±meta-analysis has been designed informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Cochrane guidance. This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-P. Sources will include Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PEDro, PROSPERO, Google Scholar and grey literature. INCLUSION CRITERIA: any systematic review which investigates biopsychosocial factors which may be associated with the development of CMP through prospective longitudinal methods. The outcome is musculoskeletal pain lasting beyond 3 months. Two independent reviewers will be involved in all stages; screening, selection, data extraction and risk of bias evaluation using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 guidelines. A meta-level narrative synthesis will be conducted based on (a) factors associated with development of CMP, (b) the range of musculoskeletal disorders for which the same/similar findings have been established and (c) the quality of studies informing these findings. Where possible, meta-analysis will be performed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines will be followed to determine the level of evidence for each biopsychosocial factor. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This umbrella review does not require ethical approval. Findings will be presented at conferences and published in a peer reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020193081.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.166 | 0.250 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.015 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".