Chronic widespread pain prevalence in the general population: A systematic review

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.

Abstract

Chronic widespread pain (CWP) is a significant burden in communities. Understanding the impact of population-dependent (e.g., age, gender) and contextual-dependent (e.g. survey method, region, inequality level) factors have on CWP prevalence may provide a foundation for population-based strategies to address CWP. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the global prevalence of CWP and evaluate the population and contextual factors associated with CWP. A systematic review of CWP prevalence studies (1990-2017) in the general population was undertaken. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine CWP prevalence, and study population data and contextual factors were evaluated using a meta-regression. Thirty-nine manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. Study CWP prevalence ranged from 1.4% to 24.0%, with CWP prevalence in men ranging from 0.8% to 15.3% and 1.7% to 22.1% in women. Estimated overall CWP prevalence was 9.6% (8.0-11.2%). Meta-regression analyses showed gender, United Nations country development status, and human development index (HDI) influenced CWP prevalence, while survey method, region, methodological and reporting quality, and inequality showed no significant effect on the CWP estimate. Globally CWP affects one in ten individuals within the general population, with women more likely to experience CWP than men. HDI was noted to be the socioeconomic factor related to CWP prevalence, with those in more developed countries having a lower CWP prevalence than those in less developed countries. Most CWP estimates were from developed countries, and CWP estimates from countries with a lower socioeconomic position is needed to further refine the global estimate of CWP.

Related collections

Most cited references 48

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: what the patterns tell us.

Paula Braveman, Catherine Cubbin, Susan Egerter … (2010)

We aimed to describe socioeconomic disparities in the United States across multiple health indicators and socioeconomic groups. Using recent national data on 5 child (infant mortality, health status, activity limitation, healthy eating, sedentary adolescents) and 6 adult (life expectancy, health status, activity limitation, heart disease, diabetes, obesity) health indicators, we examined indicator rates across multiple income or education categories, overall and within racial/ethnic groups. Those with the lowest income and who were least educated were consistently least healthy, but for most indicators, even groups with intermediate income and education levels were less healthy than the wealthiest and most educated. Gradient patterns were seen often among non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites but less consistently among Hispanics. Health in the United States is often, though not invariably, patterned strongly along both socioeconomic and racial/ethnic lines, suggesting links between hierarchies of social advantage and health. Worse health among the most socially disadvantaged argues for policies prioritizing those groups, but pervasive gradient patterns also indicate a need to address a wider socioeconomic spectrum-which may help garner political support. Routine health reporting should examine socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparity patterns, jointly and separately.

0 comments Cited 387 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain.

Janet K Freburger, George M Holmes, Robert P Agans … (2009)

National or state-level estimates on trends in the prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP) are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of chronic LBP and the demographic, health-related, and health care-seeking characteristics of individuals with the condition have changed over the last 14 years. A cross-sectional, telephone survey of a representative sample of North Carolina households was conducted in 1992 and repeated in 2006. A total of 4437 households were contacted in 1992 and 5357 households in 2006 to identify noninstitutionalized adults 21 years or older with chronic (>3 months), impairing LBP or neck pain that limits daily activities. These individuals were interviewed in more detail about their health and health care seeking. The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP rose significantly over the 14-year interval, from 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%-4.4%) in 1992 to 10.2% (95% CI, 9.3%-11.0%) in 2006. Increases were seen for all adult age strata, in men and women, and in white and black races. Symptom severity and general health were similar for both years. The proportion of individuals who sought care from a health care provider in the past year increased from 73.1% (95% CI, 65.2%-79.8%) to 84.0% (95% CI, 80.8%-86.8%), while the mean number of visits to all health care providers were similar (19.5 [1992] vs 19.4 [2006]). The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in North Carolina, with continuing high levels of disability and health care use. A substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past 2 decades may be related to this rising prevalence.

0 comments Cited 384 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger … (2007)

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.