MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389626740 · doi:10.1136/military-2023-002554

Prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain among military veterans: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

2023· review· en· W4389626740 on OpenAlexafffund
Abdul Rehman Qureshi, Mansi Patel, Samuel Neumark, Li Wang, Rachel Couban, Behnam Sadeghirad, Alla Bengizi, Jason W. Busse

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Military Health · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreImpact
FundersChronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyMeta-analysisCINAHLChronic painMEDLINEPsycINFOVeterans AffairsPopulationSubgroup analysisFamily medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatryInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic non-cancer pain is common among military veterans; however, the prevalence is uncertain. This information gap complicates policy decisions and resource planning to ensure veterans have access to healthcare services that align with their needs. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to 9 February 2023 for observational studies reporting the prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain among military veterans. We performed random-effects meta-analysis to pool pain prevalence data across studies and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Forty-two studies that included 14 305 129 veterans were eligible for review, of which 28 studies (n=5 011 634) contributed to our meta-analysis. Most studies (90%; 38 of 42) enrolled US veterans, the median of the mean age among study participants was 55 years (IQR 45-62) and 85% were male. The pooled prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain was 45%; however, we found evidence of a credible subgroup effect based on representativeness of the study population. Moderate certainty evidence found the prevalence of chronic pain among studies enrolling military veterans from the general population was 30% (95% CI 23% to 37%) compared with 51% (95% CI 38% to 64%) among military veterans sampled from populations with high rates of conditions associated with chronic pain (p=0.005). CONCLUSION: We found moderate certainty evidence that 3 in every 10 military veterans from the general population live with chronic non-cancer pain. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring access to evidence-based care for chronic pain for veterans, and the need for prevention and early management to reduce transition from acute to chronic pain. Further research, employing a standardised assessment of chronic pain, is needed to disaggregate meaningful subgroups; for example, the proportion of veterans living with moderate to severe pain compared with mild 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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Military HealthSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207