Incidence of and risk factors for lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy in adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with radiculopathy is associated with greater pain, disability, healthcare use, and costs compared with nonspecific low back pain. Reliable information about its incidence and risk factors were lacking. QUESTIONS: (1) What is the incidence of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) with radiculopathy in adults? (2) What are the risk factors for LDH with radiculopathy in adults? METHODS: Systematic review. We searched five electronic databases from 1970 to September 2023. Eligible cohort and case-control studies were identified and independently assessed for risk of bias. A qualitative best evidence synthesis of low and moderate risk of bias studies was conducted. RESULTS: We critically reviewed 87 studies and synthesised data from 59 (68%) studies; 12 were of low and 47 of moderate risk of bias. The lower and upper bound limits of the 95% CIs of annual incidence estimates ranged from 0.3 to 2.7 per 1000 persons for surgical case definitions, from 0.04 to 1.5 per 1,000 persons for hospital-based case definitions, and from 0.1 to 298.3 per 1,000 persons for clinical case definitions. Factors associated with the development of LDH with radiculopathy included middle-age (30-50 years), smoking, higher BMI, presence of cardiovascular risk factors (in women), and greater cumulative occupational lumbar load by forward bending postures and manual materials handling, with effect sizes ranging from ranging from 1.1 (1.0-1.3) to 3.7 (2.3-6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of LDH varies in different populations and according to case definition. Risk factors include individual, behavioural, and work-related variables. Our findings support the need to develop standardised case definitions that validly classify the clinical spectrum of LDH and for future low risk of bias studies examining causal relationships for LDH with radiculopathy in adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".