scholarly journals Distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent low back pain: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilie K. Øverås ◽  
Melker S. Johansson ◽  
Tarcisio F. de Campos ◽  
Manuela L. Ferreira ◽  
Bård Natvig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Body Regions

Abstract Background Co-occurring musculoskeletal pain is common among people with persistent low back pain (LBP) and associated with more negative consequences than LBP alone. The distribution and prevalence of musculoskeletal pain co-occurring with persistent LBP has not been systematically described, which hence was the aim of this review. Methods Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus. We considered observational studies from clinical settings or based on cohorts of the general or working populations involving adults 18 years or older with persistent LBP (≥4 wks) and co-occurring musculoskeletal pain for eligibility. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out by independent reviewers. Results are presented according to study population, distribution and location(s) of co-occurring pain. Results Nineteen studies out of 5744 unique records met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from high-income countries in Europe, USA and Japan. A total of 34,492 people with persistent LBP were included in our evidence synthesis. Methods for assessing and categorizing co-occurring pain varied considerably between studies, but based on the available data from observational studies, we identified three main categories of co-occurring pain – these were axial pain (18 to 58%), extremity pain (6 to 50%), and multi-site musculoskeletal pain (10 to 89%). Persistent LBP with co-occurring pain was reported more often by females than males, and co-occurring pain was reported more often in patients with more disability. Conclusions People with persistent LBP often report co-occurring neck pain, extremity pain or multi-site pain. Assessment of co-occurring pain alongside persistent LBP vary considerable between studies and there is a need for harmonisation of measurement methods to advance our understanding of how pain in different body regions occur alongside persistent LBP. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017068807.

A systematic review of the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain, back and low back pain in people with spinal cord injury

2013 ◽  
Vol 36 (9) ◽  
pp. 705-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Michailidou ◽  
Louise Marston ◽  
Lorraine H. De Souza ◽  
Ian Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cord Injury

scholarly journals Postsurgical rehabilitation for adults with low back pain with or without radiculopathy who were treated surgically: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e036817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Cancelliere ◽  
Jessica J. Wong ◽  
Hainan Yu ◽  
Margareta Nordin ◽  
Silvano Mior ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sequential Approach

IntroductionSurgical rates for low back pain (LBP) have been increasing in Europe, North America and Asia. Many patients treated surgically will require postsurgical rehabilitation. Little is known about the effectiveness of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions on health outcomes or about patients’ experiences with these interventions.ObjectivesTo conduct a mixed studies systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies regarding: (1) the effectiveness and safety of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions for adults with LBP treated surgically and (2) the experiences of patients, healthcare providers, caregivers or others involved with the rehabilitation.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and the Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from inception in any language. Studies using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies will be included. We will also search reference lists of all eligible articles. Data extraction will include type of presurgical pathology, indication for surgery, surgical procedure, how the intervention was delivered and by whom, context and setting. We will conduct a quality assessment of each study and consider study quality in our evidence synthesis. We will use a sequential approach at the review level to synthesise and integrate data. First, we will synthesise the quantitative and qualitative studies independently, conducting a meta-analysis of the quantitative studies if appropriate and thematic synthesis of the qualitative studies. Then, we will integrate the quantitative and qualitative evidence by juxtaposing the findings in a matrix.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this knowledge synthesis. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge translation activities including: (1) presentations at national and international conferences and scientific meetings; (2) presentations to local and international stakeholders; (3) publications in peer-reviewed journals and (4) posts on organisational websites.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134607.

Is alcohol intake associated with low back pain? A systematic review of observational studies

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo Henrique Ferreira ◽  
Marina Barros Pinheiro ◽  
Gustavo Carvalho Machado ◽  
Manuela Loureiro Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Alcohol Intake ◽  
Low Back

scholarly journals Management of acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain): protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e024441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason W Busse ◽  
Samantha Craigie ◽  
Behnam Sadeghirad ◽  
Rachel Couban ◽  
Patrick Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Treatment Comparison

IntroductionAcute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain is common and associated with significant socioeconomic costs. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for acute musculoskeletal pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for acute musculoskeletal pain (excluding low back pain). We will identify eligible, English-language, trials by a systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Medline, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to February 2018. Eligible trials will: (1) enrol patients presenting with acute, non-low back-related musculoskeletal pain (duration of pain ≤4 weeks), and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Fractures will be considered ineligible, unless they are non-surgical and therapy is directed at pain relief. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion to achieve consensus. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of evidence supporting treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effect meta-analysis to establish the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions on patient-important outcomes; and (2) multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will use a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies. We will use STATA V.14.2 for all analyses.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics approval is required for this systematic review, as no confidential patient data will be used. The results of this systematic review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and will inform a clinical practice guideline.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018094412.

scholarly journals Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Thermal Annular Procedures in Treating Discogenic Low Back Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 207-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Standiford Helm II
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Discogenic Low Back Pain ◽  
One Year

Background: Chronic discogenic low back pain is a common problem with significant personal and societal costs. Thermal annular procedures (TAPs) have been developed in an effort to provide a minimally invasive treatment for this disorder. Multiple techniques utilized are intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), radiofrequency annuloplasty, and intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB). However, these treatments continue to be controversial, coupled with a paucity of evidence. Study Design: A systematic review of the literature evaluating the efficacy or effectiveness of TAPs. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of TAPs in reducing low back pain in patients with intradiscal disorders. Methods: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to TAPs was performed. The literature was evaluated according to Cochrane Review criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). Outcome Measures: Short-term effectiveness was defined as one-year or less and long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one-year. Results: Systematic review of IDET identified 2 RCTs and 16 observational studies with an indicated evidence of Level II-2. Systematic review of radiofrequency annuloplasty identified no RCTs but 2 observational studies with an uncertain evidence of Level II-3. Systematic review of IDB identified one pilot study. The level of evidence is lacking with Level III. Limitations: The limitations of this review include paucity of the literature and lack of evidence with internal validity and generalizability. Conclusion: IDET offers functionally significant relief in approximately one-half of appropriately chosen chronic discogenic low back pain patients. There is minimal evidence supporting the use of radiofrequency annuloplasty and IDB. Key words: Chronic low back pain, degenerative disc disease, internal disc disruption, intervertebral disc, thermal annular procedures, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, radiofrequency ablation, intradiscal biacuplasty, radiofrequency annuloplasty

scholarly journals Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain in Post Lumbar Surgery Syndrome and Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. E435-E462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Standiford Helm II
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Lumbar Surgery

Background: Low back pain after either post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis in the absence of surgery is a vexing problem. Post lumbar surgery syndrome can occur in any age group, while low back and radicular pain from spinal stenosis is a disease of aging. As the population ages, the incidence of symptomatic spinal stenosis will increase. There are currently limited treatment options for either group. Further surgery is not uniformly effective in relieving pain after previous surgery. While therapies are being developed to treat pain due to spinal stenosis, no therapy other than adhesiolysis will treat pain due to scarring. Adhesiolysis was developed as a means of removing epidural scarring leading directly or indirectly to compression, inflammation, swelling, or a decreased nutritional supply of nerve roots. Adhesiolysis utilizes a number of modalities in the effort to break up epidural scarring, including the use of a wirebound catheter for mechanical adhesiolysis, placement of the catheter in the ventro-lateral aspect of the epidural space at the site of the exiting nerve root, and the use of high volumes of injectate, including local anesthetics and saline, either hypertonic or isotonic, along with steroids. Study Design: A systematic review of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. The severity of risks and adverse events associated with percutaneous adhesiolysis were also evaluated. Methods: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis for the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief of at least 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, change in psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid use or interventions. Results: For this systematic review, 15 studies were identified and selected for review. Of these, 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Applying the USPSTF criteria, these studies indicate that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome and that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/ or leg pain caused by spinal stenosis The incidence of complications from percutaneous adhesiolysis is low and the complications are generally minimal and self-limited. The procedure should be considered to be low risk for serious adverse events when performed by well-trained physicians. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion: In summary, there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, leg pain, adhesiolysis, Racz procedure, post lumbar surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis

scholarly journals The association between physical activity and low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hosam Alzahrani ◽  
Martin Mackey ◽  
Emmanuel Stamatakis ◽  
Joshua Robert Zadro ◽  
Debra Shirley
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document