Prevalence of acute diseases in the elderly assisted in emergency department of orthopedics

Prevalence of low back pain in different educational levels: a systematic review

Abstract Introduction: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) can be understood through the interaction of biopsychosocial factors such as education. Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether education can be considered an important risk and prognostic factor for the occurrence of LBP. Objective: To investigate the association between education and LBP. Methods: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, AMED and PsyINFO. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the review. The Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) was used to assess risk of bias. Methodological quality scores ranged from 7 to 10 on a scale of 0-10. There was a 23% (95% CI, 13-37) prevalence of LBP (10,582 out of a total of 99,457 cases) in the general sample at the time of assessment. The meta-analysis of studies on the prevalence of LBP in people with low, medium or high educational level found the following results, respectively: 24% (95% CI, 12-43), 27% (95% CI, 9-56), and 18% (95% CI, 5-50). The meta-regression identified heterogeneity among the studies included in the review. This can be explained by educational differences (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Occurrence of LBP varies according to educational level. Individuals with higher educational levels are less often affected by LBP than individuals with medium or low educational levels.

Prevalence of low back pain in older Brazilians: a systematic review with meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence of low back pain (LBP) is expected to increase worldwide with aging of the population but its prevalence in older people is not clear, mainly in developing countries.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of LBP in older Brazilians.

METHODS

Electronic searches on SciELO, LILACS, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, as well as hand-searching identified studies investigating prevalence of LBP in older Brazilians aged 60 years or over. Two independent reviewers selected studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias for each included study and extracted relevant data. Meta-analysis was conducted when enough homogeneity allowed and the GRADE system was used to summarize the overall quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included with a total of 28,448 participants. Data from point- and period-prevalence of LBP were obtained. Meta-analysis was conducted for 13 studies reporting point-prevalence. Pooled point-prevalence of LBP was 25.0% (95% CI 18.0-32.0). Other three studies investigated period-prevalence: one-week prevalence=15.0% (95% CI 13.0-18.0); six-month prevalence=43.0% (95% CI 42.0-44.0); and 12-month prevalence=13.0% (95% CI 11.0-16.0). Sensitivity analyses were performed for point-prevalence and exclusion of studies with poorer methodological quality tended to increase the estimated prevalence of LBP.

CONCLUSION

Moderate-quality evidence showed that at any point in time one in four older Brazilians suffers from LBP. This was the first systematic review investigating nationwide data on the prevalence of LBP in older people and contributes important clinical and epidemiological evidence for policymakers.