MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400321947 · doi:10.1111/ajr.13161

Global prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in rural and urban populations. A systematic review with meta‐analysis. Musculoskeletal pain in rural and urban populations

2024· review· en· W4400321947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos Iván Mesa Castrillón, Paula R. Beckenkamp, Manuela L. Ferreira, Milena Simić, Phillip Davis, Antonio Michell, Evangelos Pappas, Georgina Luscombe, Marcos de Noronha, Paulo H. Ferreira

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Rural Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMusculoskeletal painMedicineMeta-analysisRural populationPhysical therapySystematic reviewRural areaEnvironmental healthMEDLINEPopulationInternal medicineBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: To systematically compare the global prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and care-seeking in rural and urban populations. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies reporting a direct comparison of rural and urban populations was conducted worldwide and included back, knee, hip, shoulder, neck pain and a broad diagnosis of 'musculoskeletal pain'. A search strategy combining terms related to 'prevalence', 'musculoskeletal pain' and 'rural' was used on the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and rural and remote health from their inception to 1 June 2022. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the data. Results were presented as odds ratios (OR) along with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: A total of 42 studies from 24 countries were included with a total population of 489 439 participants. The quality scores for the included studies, using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale tool, showed an average score of 0.78/1, which represents an overall good quality. The pooled analysis showed statistically greater odds of hip (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.23-2.15), shoulder (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.06-1.90) and overall musculoskeletal pain (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.08-1.47) in rural populations compared to urban populations. Although the odds of seeking treatment were higher in rural populations this relationship was not statistically significant (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.55-1.03). CONCLUSION: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that musculoskeletal, hip and shoulder pain are more prevalent in rural than urban areas, although neck, back and knee pain, along with care-seeking, showed no significant difference between these populations. Strategies aimed to reduce the burden of musculoskeletal pain should consider the specific needs and limited access to quality evidence-based care for musculoskeletal pain of rural populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.025
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.395
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Rural HealthSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207