Low Back Pain During and After Spaceflight: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Space flights can produce physiological changes in the spine, leading to the development of acute and chronic pain in passengers. However, there is a lack of comprehensive literature exploring physiological spine changes and acute and chronic pain in space passengers (astronauts and animals). The first aim of this study was to identify the physiological changes experienced by passengers (humans and animals) after space flight. The second aim was to identify the incidence of low back pain during and after space flight. This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered in PROSPERO (ID 451144). We included Randomized Controlled Trials or longitudinal studies in humans and animals, and the variables must be assessed either in-flight or post-flight. We conducted a literature search in major databases combining the keywords: Pain; Space; Low Back Pain; Astronauts; Spine Changes; Microgravity; Physiological Changes; Humans; Animals. Risk of bias and quality of studies were analyzed, and the level of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system. After duplicates were removed, 115 abstracts were screened by two reviewers, and finally, 11 articles were included in this review. The evidence indicates that astronauts experience muscle atrophy in the lumbar multifidus with a moderate to large effect, especially in the L4-L5 and L5-S1 segments. Space flights also decrease the range of motion with a moderate effect, along with disc herniations and disc dehydration. 77% of astronauts experience pain during spaceflight, and 47% develop acute pain after spaceflight. Chronic pain was reported by 33% of the astronauts. After space flights, astronauts suffer from lumbar muscle atrophy, reduced range of motion, disc herniations, and disc dehydration, with a high incidence of both acute and chronic pain. Plain Language Summary: Space travel affects the spine and can cause both immediate and long-term pain. Our study aimed to understand what changes happen in the spine during and after space travel and how often these changes lead to low back pain. Why was the study done? We wanted to investigate the specific spinal changes and the frequency of low back pain in both astronauts and animals exposed to space travel. This is important because understanding these effects can help improve health interventions for space travelers. What did the researchers do? We reviewed studies that examined spine changes and pain in humans and animals during and after space flights. We used a systematic approach to find relevant research, following strict guidelines and assessing the quality of each study. What did the researchers find?Astronauts often experience muscle loss in the lower back, particularly in the lumbar spine.Space travel reduces the spine’s range of motion.There is a significant occurrence of disc herniations and disc dehydration.77% of astronauts report pain during space flights.47% experience acute pain after returning to Earth.33% suffer from chronic pain post-mission. What do these results mean? Our findings show that space travel can lead to serious spinal issues and a high risk of pain. These results highlight the need for better health strategies to protect astronauts during and after their missions. Understanding these effects is crucial for developing effective interventions and ensuring the well-being of space travelers. Keywords: chronic low back pain, space flight, physiological changes, microgravity
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".