1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Association Between Low Back Pain and Biomedical Beliefs in Academics of Physiotherapy

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain.

          To perform a systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain, and to examine the influence that case definition, prevalence period, and other variables have on prevalence. We conducted a new systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain that included general population studies published between 1980 and 2009. A total of 165 studies from 54 countries were identified. Of these, 64% had been published since the last comparable review. Low back pain was shown to be a major problem throughout the world, with the highest prevalence among female individuals and those aged 40-80 years. After adjusting for methodologic variation, the mean ± SEM point prevalence was estimated to be 11.9 ± 2.0%, and the 1-month prevalence was estimated to be 23.2 ± 2.9%. As the population ages, the global number of individuals with low back pain is likely to increase substantially over the coming decades. Investigators are encouraged to adopt recent recommendations for a standard definition of low back pain and to consult a recently developed tool for assessing the risk of bias of prevalence studies. Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Rheumatology.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The global burden of low back pain: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study.

            To estimate the global burden of low back pain (LBP). LBP was defined as pain in the area on the posterior aspect of the body from the lower margin of the twelfth ribs to the lower glutaeal folds with or without pain referred into one or both lower limbs that lasts for at least one day. Systematic reviews were performed of the prevalence, incidence, remission, duration, and mortality risk of LBP. Four levels of severity were identified for LBP with and without leg pain, each with their own disability weights. The disability weights were applied to prevalence values to derive the overall disability of LBP expressed as years lived with disability (YLDs). As there is no mortality from LBP, YLDs are the same as disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Out of all 291 conditions studied in the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study, LBP ranked highest in terms of disability (YLDs), and sixth in terms of overall burden (DALYs). The global point prevalence of LBP was 9.4% (95% CI 9.0 to 9.8). DALYs increased from 58.2 million (M) (95% CI 39.9M to 78.1M) in 1990 to 83.0M (95% CI 56.6M to 111.9M) in 2010. Prevalence and burden increased with age. LBP causes more global disability than any other condition. With the ageing population, there is an urgent need for further research to better understand LBP across different settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally.

              The economic burden of low back pain (LBP) is very large and appears to be growing. It is not possible to impact this burden without understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the research on which these costs are calculated. To conduct a systematic review of LBP cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Systematic review of the literature. Medline was searched to uncover studies about the direct or indirect costs of LBP published in English from 1997 to 2007. Data extracted for each eligible study included study design, population, definition of LBP, methods of estimating costs, year of data, and estimates of direct, indirect, or total costs. Results were synthesized descriptively. The search yielded 147 studies, of which 21 were deemed relevant; 4 other studies and 2 additional abstracts were found by searching reference lists, bringing the total to 27 relevant studies. The studies reported on data from Australia, Belgium, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the United States. Nine studies estimated direct costs only, nine indirect costs only, and nine both direct and indirect costs, from a societal (n=18) or private insurer (n=9) perspective. Methodology used to derive both direct and indirect cost estimates differed markedly among the studies. Among studies providing a breakdown on direct costs, the largest proportion of direct medical costs for LBP was spent on physical therapy (17%) and inpatient services (17%), followed by pharmacy (13%) and primary care (13%). Among studies providing estimates of total costs, indirect costs resulting from lost work productivity represented a majority of overall costs associated with LBP. Three studies reported that estimates with the friction period approach were 56% lower than with the human capital approach. Several studies have attempted to estimate the direct, indirect, or total costs associated with LBP in various countries using heterogeneous methodology. Estimates of the economic costs in different countries vary greatly depending on study methodology but by any standards must be considered a substantial burden on society. This review did not identify any studies estimating the total costs of LBP in the United States from a societal perspective. Such studies may be helpful in determining appropriate allocation of health-care resources devoted to this condition.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Spine
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0362-2436
                1528-1159
                2020
                October 1 2020
                March 19 2020
                : 45
                : 19
                : 1354-1359
                Article
                10.1097/BRS.0000000000003487
                9e50fc12-bf3e-43ea-a0fa-58de5f8aa4fd
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article