The epidemiology of low back pain in chiropractors and chiropractic students: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chiropractors and chiropractic students commonly report low back pain (LBP). However, the burden of LBP in this occupational group has not been synthesized in the literature. This systematic review aims to describe the epidemiology of LBP in chiropractors and chiropractic students. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from inception to May 1, 2023. Eligible studies were cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control studies investigating the prevalence, incidence, associated factors, or risk factors of LBP in chiropractors or chiropractic students. Reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the appropriate JBI Checklists for the observational study design. We descriptively synthesized studies that were rated as low or moderate risk of bias. RESULTS: Of 2012 citations screened, we included 2 cross-sectional studies in the evidence synthesis (1 study rated as moderate risk of bias on chiropractors, and 1 rated as low risk of bias on chiropractic students). For chiropractors, the 12-month prevalence of work-related overuse injuries to the low back was 35.6% (95% CI 29.1, 42.0) in women and 22.4% (95% CI 16.3, 29.6) in men. The 12-month prevalence of work-related acute physical injuries to the low back in chiropractors were 3.4% (95% CI 1.6, 6.8) for women and 0.7% (95% CI 0.1, 3.7) for men. Among chiropractic students, the 1-week prevalence of LBP was 69% (95% CI 64.8, 73.0). This was higher among female students (72.5%, 95% CI 67.1, 77.4) and lower among male students (64%, 95% CI 57.0, 70.6). CONCLUSION: There is limited high-quality evidence on the epidemiology of LBP in chiropractors and chiropractic students. Our systematic review provides a synthesis of the body of literature, highlighting that chiropractors and chiropractic students commonly report LBP. Future high-quality research is needed to address the incidence, associated factors, and risk factors of LBP.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".