Physical risk factors for adolescent neck and mid back pain: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Besides low back pain (LBP), also neck pain (NP) and mid back pain (MBP) are common health issues in adolescence. Psychological factors are regarded as main risk factors for spinal pain in adolescence, but recent studies suggest that the importance of physical factors might be underestimated. The purpose of this study was to summarize the results of studies on physical risk factors for adolescent NP and MBP.Methods
Cross-sectional and prospective English studies on NP and MBP in adolescents aged 10 to 18 were searched by a professional librarian in Medline (OvidSP), Premedline (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, PEDro and PsycINFO up to October 2016. Studies that were restricted to self-report via questionnaires were excluded.Results
Eight cross-sectional studies could be included in this review. Some aspects of sagittal alignment in sitting (increased lumbar lordosis) and standing (anteroposition of the head, sway-back posture) were associated with NP. Study comparability was impeded by inconsistent definitions of NP and MBP and a wide variety of outcome measures.Conclusions
This systematic review indicates that prospective studies using a consistent definition of NP and MBP are needed. Such studies might further investigate sagittal alignment in sitting and standing as possible risk factors for NP and MBP in adolescence using a consistent terminology for the outcomes and longitudinal research designs.
SUBMITTER: Wirth B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6151922 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Physical risk factors for adolescent neck and mid back pain: a systematic review.
Wirth Brigitte B Potthoff Tobias T Rosser Sandra S Humphreys Barry Kim BK de Bruin Eling D ED
Chiropractic & manual therapies 20180924
<h4>Background</h4>Besides low back pain (LBP), also neck pain (NP) and mid back pain (MBP) are common health issues in adolescence. Psychological factors are regarded as main risk factors for spinal pain in adolescence, but recent studies suggest that the importance of physical factors might be underestimated. The purpose of this study was to summarize the results of studies on physical risk factors for adolescent NP and MBP.<h4>Methods</h4>Cross-sectional and prospective English studies on NP ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeLow back pain (LBP) is prevalent in military personnel. We aimed to systematically review the literature regarding risk factors for first-time LBP during military service among active duty military personnel.MethodsWe searched six electronic databases (inception-April 2020) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Eligible studies were independently critically appraised by paired reviewers and a descriptive synthesis was conducted.ResultsWe screened 1981 records, reviewed 118 full-text articles, and synthesised data from eight acceptable quality cohort studies. Studies assessed physical (n = 4), sociodemographic (n = 2), and/or occupational factors (n = 5) associated with LBP. Two studies reported prior LBP was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of LBP compared to those without prior LBP. Other factors consistently associated with LBP included previous musculoskeletal injury (n = 2), less time spent on physical training (n = 2), female sex (n = 2), and lower rank (n = 2). Factors associated with LBP from single studies included marital status, lower education level, blast injury, job duties, and service type. We found inconsistent associations for performance on physical fitness tests, age, and occupation type. Psychological risk factors were not assessed in any included studies.ConclusionIn active duty personnel, prior history of LBP, previous musculoskeletal injury, less time in physical training, female sex, and lower rank were consistent risk factors for LBP. This information is relevant for researchers, active duty military personnel, and other decision makers. Future studies should explore causal relationships for LBP in this population. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084549.
| S-EPMC8719410 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This systematic review aimed to determine the prevalence of lower back pain (LBP) in equestrian athletes (EAs) and identify associated risk factors. Following the PRISMA guidelines, observational studies published between 2004 and 2024 in English, Portuguese, Spanish, and German were included. The review identified relevant studies through the Web of Science, EBSCO, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS (last search performed on 30 October 2024), yielding 14 studies with a total of 4527 participants. The question format for the included studies specified the population as equestrian athletes, the exposure as equestrian sports, and the outcome as lower back pain. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Observation Study Quality Evaluation tool, and six studies were deemed high-quality. LBP prevalence in EAs was higher than in the general and athlete population, with point prevalence ranging from 27.9% to 87.9%. Sport-specific factors, including workload and stable duties, were significant risk factors. Methodological inconsistencies, such as varying definitions of LBP and a lack of standardized exposure assessment, and the overall low quality of studies limited the comparability of findings. This review underscores the need for more high-quality research and tailored interventions addressing both riding and off-horse activities in EAs.
| S-EPMC11679230 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundYoung adulthood is a sensitive period of life where development of musculoskeletal neck pain may be established and impact future health. The objective of this systematic review was to investigate risk factors for non-specific neck pain in young adults.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted in six databases in September 2019. Prospective cohorts and registry studies including participants in whom the risk factor or the outcome (neck pain) was registered in the ages 18-29 years old were included. The Quality in Prognosis Studies tool was used for quality assessment. A modification of the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Potential risk factors investigated in more than one study were summarised.ResultsSearches yielded 4527 articles, of which six matched the eligibility criteria. Fifty-six potential risk factors were investigated in the six studies, covering a broad range of domains. Five risk factors were investigated in more than one study (female sex, body mass index (BMI), physical activity, duration of computer use and perceived stress). Physical activity and BMI showed no association with neck pain, and inconsistent results were found for female sex, duration of daily computer use and perceived stress. Risk of bias was moderate or high in all studies, and the overall quality of evidence was very low.ConclusionThe studies included many potential risk factors, but none of them showed consistent associations with neck pain. There is a paucity of high-quality studies investigating risk factors for neck pain in young adults.
| S-EPMC7285427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLow back pain (LBP) has a significant impact on the general population, especially on military personnel. This study aimed to systematically review the relevant literature to determine the prevalence and risk factors of low back pain among military personnel from different military occupational categories.MethodsFor this systematic review, we searched Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane. We performed study selection, data extraction, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the adapted risk of bias assessment tool by Hoy et al. This review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This study is registered on the Center for Open Science, registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/HRGE8.ResultsOut of 860 papers, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria. More than 360 000 military people with lumbar pain situation were considered for inclusion in this systematic review. The 1-year prevalence of LBP could be up to 81.7% in the Army, 5.2% in the Marines, and 48.1% in the Air Force. Age (OR = 0.494-2.89), history of LBP (OR = 2.2-8.91), and sedentary position (OR = 0.55-3.63) were the most common physical, sociodemographic, and occupational risk factors, respectively.ConclusionsLow back pain was prevalent among military personnel. There was heterogeneity in studies and a significant difference in prevalence and incidence across various occupational categories. Physical, sociodemographic, and occupational risk factors were researched more than psychological risk factors in the military.
| S-EPMC11457804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition that substantially impairs individuals' physical functioning. This highlights the need for effective management strategies to improve patient outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial to have knowledge of physical functioning prognostic factors that can predict outcomes to facilitate the development of targeted treatment plans aiming to achieve better patient outcomes. There is no synthesis of evidence for physical functioning measures as prognostic factors in the LBP population. The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize evidence for physical measures of physical functioning as prognostic factors to predict outcomes in LBP.MethodsThe protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Prospective longitudinal observational studies investigating potential physical prognostic factors in LBP and/or low back-related leg pain population will be included, with no restriction on outcome. Searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL databases, grey literature search using Open Grey System and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, hand-searching journals, and reference lists of included studies. Two independent reviewers will evaluate the eligibility of studies, extract data, assess risk of bias and quality of evidence. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. Adequacy of clinical, methodological, and statistical homogeneity among included studies will decide quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative analysis (narrative synthesis) focused on prognostic factors and strength of association with outcomes. Quality of cumulative evidence will be evaluated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).DiscussionInformation about prognostic factors can be used to predict outcomes in LBP. Accurate outcome prediction is essential for identifying high-risk patients that allows targeted allocation of healthcare resources, ultimately reducing the healthcare burden.RegistrationPROSPERO, CRD42023406796.
| S-EPMC10712879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:CONTEXT::Low back pain is common in golfers. The risk factors for golf-related low back pain are unclear but may include individual demographic, anthropometric, and practice factors as well as movement characteristics of the golf swing. OBJECTIVE::The aims of this systematic review were to summarize and synthesize evidence for factors associated with low back pain in recreational and professional golfers. DATA SOURCES::A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus electronic databases through September 2017. STUDY SELECTION::Studies were included if they quantified demographic, anthropometric, biomechanical, or practice variables in individuals with and without golf-related low back pain. STUDY DESIGN::Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE::Level 3. DATA EXTRACTION::Studies were independently reviewed for inclusion by 2 authors, and the following data were extracted: characterization of low back pain, participant demographics, anthropometrics, biomechanics, strength/flexibility, and practice characteristics. The methodological quality of studies was appraised by 3 authors using a previously published checklist. Where possible, individual and pooled effect sizes of select variables of interest were calculated for differences between golfers with and without pain. RESULTS::The search retrieved 73 articles, 19 of which met the inclusion criteria (12 case-control studies, 5 cross-sectional studies, and 2 prospective longitudinal studies). Methodological quality scores ranged from 12.5% to 100.0%. Pooled analyses demonstrated a significant association between increased age and body mass and golf-related low back pain in cross-sectional/case-control studies. Prospective data indicated that previous history of back pain predicts future episodes of pain. CONCLUSION::Individual demographic and anthropometric characteristics may be associated with low back pain, but this does not support a relationship between swing characteristics and the development of golf-related pain. Additional high-quality prospective studies are needed to clarify risk factors for back pain in golfers.
| S-EPMC6204638 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 epidemic, the prevalence of neck pain among college students has increased due to the shift from offline to online learning and increasing academic and employment pressures. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to identify the personal, occupational, and psychological factors associated with the development of neck pain to promote the development of preventive strategies and early intervention treatment.MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 for cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, case----control studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on neck pain. The quality of the selected studies were assessed by American Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the effects of the included risk factors on neck pain.ResultsThirty studies were included, including 18,395 participants. And a total of 33 potentially associated risk factors were identified. Ultimately, 11 risk factors were included in the meta-analysis after assessing, and all results were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The factors supported by strong evidence mainly include the improper use of the pillow (OR = 2.20, 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.48), lack of exercise (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.53 to 2.30), improper sitting posture (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.39 to 2.78), history of neck and shoulder trauma (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.79 to 3.01), senior grade (OR = 2.86, 95% CI: 2.07 to 3.95), staying up late (OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.35 to 2.41), long-time electronic product usage daily (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.76), long-time to bow head (OR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.64), and emotional problems (OR = 2.09; 95% CI: 1.66 to 2.63). Risk factors supported by moderate evidence were high stress (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.52) and female gender (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.87).ConclusionThis study obtained 11 main risk factors affecting college students neck pain, including improper use of the pillow, lack of exercise, improper sitting posture, history of neck and shoulder trauma, senior grade, staying up late, long-term electronic product usage daily, long time to bow head, high stress, emotional problems and female gender.
| S-EPMC10408143 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNeck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP) are common symptoms bothering people in daily life. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used to treat various symptoms and diseases in China and has been demonstrated to be effective. The objective of the present study was to review and analyze the existing data about pain and disability in TCM treatments for NP and LBP.MethodsStudies were identified by a comprehensive search of databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, up to September 1, 2013. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM in managing NP and LBP.ResultsSeventy five randomized controlled trials (n = 11077) were included. Almost all of the studies investigated individuals experiencing chronic NP (CNP) or chronic LBP (CLBP). We found moderate evidence that acupuncture was more effective than sham-acupuncture in reducing pain immediately post-treatment for CNP (visual analogue scale (VAS) 10 cm, mean difference (MD) = -0.58 (-0.94, -0.22), 95% confidence interval, p = 0.01), CLBP (standardized mean difference = -0.47 (-0.77, -0.17), p = 0.003), and acute LBP (VAS 10 cm, MD = -0.99 (-1.24, -0.73), p< 0.001). Cupping could be more effective than waitlist in VAS (100 mm) (MD = -19.10 (-27.61, -10.58), p < 0. 001) for CNP or medications (e.g. NSAID) for CLBP (MD = -5.4 (-8.9, -0.19), p = 0.003). No serious or life-threatening adverse effects were found.ConclusionsAcupuncture, acupressure, and cupping could be efficacious in treating the pain and disability associated with CNP or CLBP in the immediate term. Gua sha, tai chi, qigong, and Chinese manipulation showed fair effects, but we were unable to draw any definite conclusions, and further research is still needed. The efficacy of tuina and moxibustion is unknown because no direct evidence was obtained. These TCM modalities are relatively safe.
| S-EPMC4339195 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe burden on the individual, society and healthcare providers of low back pain in the western world is well documented. Globalisation and urbanisation, it has been reported, has led to an increase in low back pain in developing countries such as those situated in Sub-Saharan Africa. Low back pain determinants are framed, according to the individual, social and cultural context. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the risk factors of low back pain in Nigeria and South Africa, whose growing and modernising economies operate alongside more traditional labour-intensive practices provide a comparison for modern-day Sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsStudy eligibility included: etiological studies (whose primary objective is to explore/determine risk factors of lower back pain within the population) to include published literature AND non-published manuscripts and 'grey literature' (i.e. conference abstracts, thesis and preprints where applicable), studies exploring MSK pain in general if more than 80% of the sample complained of LBP, studies focussing on Nigerian or South African residents, studies including individuals aged 18 years or over and reports printed in the English language. Risk of bias was determined using the AXIS and CASP critical appraisal tools. Owing to study heterogeneity a stratified synthesis was performed to analyse study data.ResultsThirty-nine studies were included. Overall, a total of twenty-two sociodemographic, lifestyle, occupational and psychosocial risk factors were identified. There is good quality evidence of an association between the following risk factors and low back pain: advancing age, female gender, obesity, nature and duration of work, posture, manual handling, perceptions of work, job autonomy and disease conviction.ConclusionThis review suggests common risk factors for low back pain exists in Nigerian and South African populations as they do in other countries.FundingNo funding was received for this systematic review.Trail registrationThe protocol for this review was registered on PROSPERO prior to commencement (protocol registration number: CRD 42023378363).Clinical trial numberNot applicable.
| S-EPMC11600746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the comparative effectiveness and harms of trigger point injections (TPI) for myofascial neck and back pain. Electronic literature databases were searched to identify articles pertaining to TPI for chronic myofascial neck and back pain. Searches were done from database start dates up to April 2020. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, cohorts, and case control studies. Pain, functional outcomes, and harms were extracted. Outcome time points were divided into short term (7 days to <6 weeks), intermediate term (6 weeks to < 3 months), long term (3 months to < 6 months), and longest term (>6 months). Quality assessment was done using the Cochrane Back Review Group (CBRG) checklist for RCTs, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case control studies. 14 studies met inclusion criteria. Six studies compared TPI of Botulinum toxin A (five with Onabutulinum toxin A, and one with Abobotulinum toxin A) with normal saline (NS). Two of the Onabotulinum toxin A studies showed greater pain improvement in the Onabotulinum toxin A group at short, intermediate, compared with NS. The Abobotulinum study showed pain improvement at short, intermediate, and long terms. Of note Onabotulinum toxin A was associated with improved anxiety and depression in two studies. Two studies compared Onabotulinum toxin A to local anesthetic, one to methylprednisolone, and one to dry needling (DN), all of which showed no difference. One study compared Ozone to Lidocaine and DN, and it showed no difference. Two studies compared sterile water to NS; they both found no difference in pain outcomes at the short term time point. However one of these two studies showed improved pain at intermediate, long, and longest terms in the sterile water group. Tropisetron showed no difference vs. NS. Adverse effects were mostly reported for Onabotulinum toxin A and Abobotulinum toxin A. Given the mixed results, we are unable to conclude whether an injectate composition is superior to another, or make recommendations in that regard. Further studies will help elucidate the ideal injectate composition and parameters.
| S-EPMC11373026 | biostudies-literature