Risk Factors for Low Back Pain: A Population‐Based Longitudinal Study

This meta-analysis assessed the association between overweight/obesity and low back pain. The authors systematically searched the Medline (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) and Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) databases until May 2009. Ninety-five studies were reviewed and 33 included in the meta-analyses. In cross-sectional studies, obesity was associated with increased prevalence of low back pain in the past 12 months (pooled odds ratio (OR) = 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14, 1.54), seeking care for low back pain (OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.46, 1.67), and chronic low back pain (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.28, 1.60). Compared with non-overweight people, overweight people had a higher prevalence of low back pain but a lower prevalence of low back pain compared with obese people. In cohort studies, only obesity was associated with increased incidence of low back pain for > or =1 day in the past 12 months (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.92). Results remained consistent after adjusting for publication bias and limiting the analyses to studies that controlled for potential confounders. Findings indicate that overweight and obesity increase the risk of low back pain. Overweight and obesity have the strongest association with seeking care for low back pain and chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE To estimate worldwide prevalence of chronic low back pain according to age and sex. METHODS We consulted Medline (PubMed), LILACS and EMBASE electronic databases. The search strategy used the following descriptors and combinations: back pain, prevalence, musculoskeletal diseases, chronic musculoskeletal pain, rheumatic, low back pain, musculoskeletal disorders and chronic low back pain. We selected cross-sectional population-based or cohort studies that assessed chronic low back pain as an outcome. We also assessed the quality of the selected studies as well as the chronic low back pain prevalence according to age and sex. RESULTS The review included 28 studies. Based on our qualitative evaluation, around one third of the studies had low scores, mainly due to high non-response rates. Chronic low back pain prevalence was 4.2% in individuals aged between 24 and 39 years old and 19.6% in those aged between 20 and 59. Of nine studies with individuals aged 18 and above, six reported chronic low back pain between 3.9% and 10.2% and three, prevalence between 13.1% and 20.3%. In the Brazilian older population, chronic low back pain prevalence was 25.4%. CONCLUSIONS Chronic low back pain prevalence increases linearly from the third decade of life on, until the 60 years of age, being more prevalent in women. Methodological approaches aiming to reduce high heterogeneity in case definitions of chronic low back pain are essential to consistency and comparative analysis between studies. A standard chronic low back pain definition should include the precise description of the anatomical area, pain duration and limitation level.

Review of studies on sciatica prevalence and synthesis of available evidence. To assess the studies on sciatica prevalence, discuss reasons for variation in estimates, provide suggestions for improving accuracy of recording sciatica in epidemiological and outcome studies so as to enable better evaluation of natural history and treatment effect in the presence of low back pain related sciatica. Sciatica is a common cause of pain and disability. It is more persistent and severe than low back pain, has a less favorable outcome and consumes more health resources. However, sciatica prevalence rates reported in different studies and reviews vary considerably and provide no clear picture about sciatica prevalence. A literature search of all English language peer reviewed publications was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL for the years 1980-2006. Two reviewers extracted data on sciatica prevalence and definitions from the identified articles. Of the papers retrieved, 23 were included in the review. Only 2 studies out of the 23 used clinical assessment for assessing sciatic symptoms, and definitions of sciatica varied widely. Sciatica prevalence from different studies ranged from 1.2% to 43%. Sciatica prevalence estimates vary considerably between studies. This may be due to differences in definitions, methods of data collection and perhaps populations studied. Suggestions are made on how to improve accuracy of capturing sciatica in epidemiological studies.