A longitudinal study of radiological changes in the lumbar spine in asymptomatic Japanese military young adults

Nemoto, Osamu; Kitada, Akira; Tsuda, Yoshifumi; Yokobe, Junya; Matsukawa, Keitarou; Ukegawa, You

doi:10.1007/s12570-012-0108-8

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for or against an association between low back pain and spondylosis using routine radiography [39,40]. Grade of Recommendation: I Imaging Question 2: Is there evidence to support the use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the evaluation of low back pain in the absence of x-ray and/or radiographic abnormality?…”

Section: Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

Matz²,

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The North American Spine Society's (NASS) Evidence Based Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Low Back Pain features evidence-based recommendations for diagnosing and treating adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The guideline is intended to reflect contemporary treatment concepts for nonspecific low back pain as reflected in the highest quality clinical literature available on this subject as of February 2016. PURPOSE: The purpose of the guideline is to provide an evidence-based educational tool to assist spine specialists when making clinical decisions for adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. This article provides a brief summary of the evidence-based guideline recommendations for diagnosing and treating patients with this condition. STUDY DESIGN: This is a guideline summary review. METHODS: This guideline is the product of the Low Back Pain Work Group of NASS' Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Development Committee. The methods used to develop this guideline are detailed in the complete guideline and technical report available on the NASS website. In brief, a multidisciplinary work group of spine care specialists convened to identify clinical questions to address in the guideline. The literature search strategy was developed in consultation with medical librarians. Upon completion of the systematic literature search, evidence relevant to the clinical questions posed in the guideline was reviewed. Work group members utilized NASS evidentiary table templates to summarize study conclusions, identify study strengths and weaknesses, and assign levels of evidence. Work group members participated in webcasts and in-person rate expert opinion when necessary. The draft guideline was submitted to an internal and external peer review process and ultimately approved by the NASS Board of Directors. RESULTS: Eighty-two clinical questions were addressed, and the answers are summarized in this article. The respective recommendations were graded according to the levels of evidence of the supporting literature. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based clinical guideline has been created using techniques of evidence-based medicine and best available evidence to aid practitioners in the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with nonspecific low back pain. The entire guideline document, including the evidentiary tables, literature search parameters, literature attrition flowchart, suggestions for future research, and all of the references,

show abstract

Section: Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

Matz²,

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A total of 11,346 studies appeared in the searches and 49 were included in this systematic review (Figure ) with over 125,000 study participants followed‐up. Ten studies (Harkness, Macfarlane, Nahit, Silman, & McBeth, ; Mikkonen et al, , , , ; Mitchell et al, ; Nemoto et al, , ; Power, Frank, Hertzman, Schierhout, & Li, ; Smith, Russell, & Hodges, ) reported risk factors for first episode of back pain, two reported risk factors for a new episode (Mostardi, Noe, Kovacik, & Porterfield, ; Videman, Ojajarvi, Riihimaki, & Troup, ) and 30 reported risk factors for a mixture of participants with first episode and a new episode of back pain (Adams, Mannion, & Dolan, ; Auvinen et al, ; Baranto, Hellstrom, Cederlund, Nyman, & Sward, ; Cholewicki et al, ; Claeys et al, ; Coenen et al, ; Feyer et al, ; Greene, Cholewicki, Galloway, Nguyen, & Radebold, ; Hestbaek, Korsholm, Leboeuf‐Yde, & Kyvik, ; Hestbaek Leboeuf‐Yde, & Kyvik, , ; Hestbaek, Leboeuf‐Yde, Kyvik, & Manniche, ; Kanchanomai, Janwantanakul, Pensri, & Jiamjarasrangsi, ; Kato et al, ; Kroner‐Herwig, Gorbunova, & Maas, ; Lake, Power, & Cole, ; Lallukka et al, ; Lunde, Koch, Hanvold, Waersted, & Veiersted, ; Lundin, Hellstrom, Nilsson, & Sward, ; Mannion, Dolan, & Adams, ; Monnier, Djupsjöbacka, Larsson, Norman, & Äng, ; Nadler, Wu, Galski, & Feinberg, ; Ogon et al, ; Poussa et al, ; Roy & Lopez, ; Salminen, Erkintalo, Laine, & Pentti, ; Salminen, Erkintalo, Pentti, Oksanen, & Kormano, ; Silfies, Cholewicki, Reeves, & Greene, ; Van Nieuwenhuyse et al, ; Zack, Levin, Krakov, Finestone, & Moshe, ). Seven studies did not report the status of new or first episode of back pain (Brady et al, ; Cheung, ; Hayes, Smith, & Taylor, ; Hertzberg, ; Klaber Moffett, Hughes, & Griffiths, ; Lee et al, ; Rosenhagen, Nieder...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 11,346 studies appeared in the searches and 49 were included in this systematic review ( Figure 1) with over 125,000 study participants followed-up. Ten studies (Harkness, Macfarlane, Nahit, Silman, & McBeth, 2003;Mikkonen et al, 2016Mikkonen et al, , 2013Mikkonen et al, , 2008Mikkonen et al, , 2012Mitchell et al, 2010;Nemoto et al, 2013Nemoto et al, , 2012Power, Frank, Hertzman, Schierhout, & Li, 2001;Smith, Russell, & Hodges, 2009) reported risk factors for first episode of back pain, two reported risk factors for a new episode (Mostardi, Noe, Kovacik, & Porterfield, 1992;Videman, Ojajarvi, Riihimaki, & Troup, 2005) and 30 reported risk factors for a mixture of participants with first episode and a new episode of back pain (Adams, Mannion, & Dolan, 1999;Auvinen et al, 2010;Baranto, Hellstrom, Cederlund, Nyman, & Sward, 2009;Cholewicki et al, 2005;Claeys et al, 2015;Coenen et al, 2017;Feyer et al, 2000;Greene, Cholewicki, Galloway, Nguyen, & Radebold, 2001;Hestbaek, Korsholm, Leboeuf-Yde, & Kyvik, 2008;Hestbaek Leboeuf-Yde, & Kyvik, 2006a, 2006bHestbaek, Leboeuf-Yde, Kyvik, & Manniche, 2006;Kanchanomai, Janwantanakul, Pensri, & Jiamjarasrangsi, 2015;Kato et al, 2017;Kroner-Herwig, Gorbunova, & Maas, 2017;Lake, Power, & Cole, 2000;Lallukka et al, 2017;Lunde, Koch, Hanvold, Waersted, & Veiersted, 2015;…”

Section: Summary Of Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No association: n = 7 (Adams 1999, Mitchell 2010, Nemoto 2013, Nemoto 2012, Poussa 2005, Power 2001, Salminen 1995 No association: n = 3 (Hestbaek 2008, Hestbaek 2006 Are No association: n = 4 (Adams 1999, Nemoto 2012, Nemoto 2013, Videman 2005 Positive association: n = 2 (Mitchell 2010, Smith 2009 No association: n = 2 (Lunde 2015, Mikkonen 2008 Positive association: n = 2 (Hestbaek 2006 No association: n = 4 (Mannion1996, Nemoto 2013, Power 2001, Smith 2009 No association: n = 4 (Claeys 2015, Kanchanomai 2015, Kato 2017, Lunde 2015 Positive Association: n = 1 (Mitchell 2010) Positive association between inactivity and low back pain: n = 1 (Brady 2016) Moderate History of back pain 89,808…”

Section: 435mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…emerging and young adulthood (Adams et al, 1999;Cheung, 2010;Cholewicki et al, 2005;Claeys et al, 2015;Feyer et al, 2000;Greene et al, 2001;Harkness et al, 2003;Hayes et al, 2014;Kanchanomai et al, 2015;Klaber Moffett et al, 1993;Mannion et al, 1996;Mitchell et al, 2010;Monnier et al, 2016;Mostardi et al, 1992;Roy & Lopez, 2013;Silfies et al, 2007;Smith & Leggat, 2007;Van Nieuwenhuyse et al, 2009;Zack et al, 2018) and nine studies measured risk factors in emerging adulthood and back pain in adulthood (Baranto et al, 2009;Brady et al, 2016;Kroner-Herwig et al, 2017;Lake et al, 2000;Lallukka et al, 2017;Nemoto et al, 2013Nemoto et al, , 2012Power et al, 2001;Videman et al, 2005; two studies did not report the exact age span (Kato et al, 2017;Nadler et al, 1998)).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Risk factors for episodes of back pain in emerging adults. A systematic review

Øiestad

Hilde

Tveter

et al. 2019

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective The transition from adolescence to adulthood is a sensitive period in life for health outcomes, including back pain. The objective was to synthesize evidence on risk factors for new episodes of back pain in emerging adults (18–29 years). Methods The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016046635). We searched Medline; EMBASE; AMED and other databases up to September 2018 for prospective cohort studies that estimated the association between risk factor(s) and self‐reported back pain. Risk factors could be measured before or during the age range 18–29 years, and back pain could be measured during or after this age range, with at least 12 months between assessments. Risk factors assessed in ≥3 studies were summarized. Risk of bias was assessed using a 6‐item checklist. Results Forty‐nine studies were included with more than 150 different risk factors studied. Nine studies had low risk of bias, 26 had moderate and 14 had high risk of bias. Age, sex, height, body mass index (BMI), smoking, physical activity level, a history of back pain, job satisfaction and structural imaging findings were investigated in three or more studies. History of back pain was the only risk factor consistently associated with back pain after adjustment (nine studies). Conclusion There is moderate quality evidence that a history of back pain is a risk factor for back pain. There are inconsistent associations for age, sex, height, BMI, smoking and activity level. No associations were found between job satisfaction and structural imaging findings and back pain. Significance Emerging adulthood is a transitional period of life with changes in life style, potentially influencing future musculoskeletal health. This systematic review included 49 articles evaluating more than 150 potential risk factors for back pain, one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorders. No consistent results were found for life style factors such as physical activity level or BMI, both highlighted as important risk factors in previous literature. Importantly, a previous episode of back pain was a consistent risk factor for a new episode of back pain across several studies, and further investigation of risk factors for the first back pain episode is needed.

show abstract

Evaluation of questionnaire in assessment of low back pain and disability and find correlation between disability score, clinical features and imaging findings

Saharan¹,

Sharma²

2021

Nat. J. Clin. Orthop.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:To evaluate the utility of a questionnaire in assessment of low back pain and disability and the correlation between disability score, clinical features and imaging findings in patients with low back pain. Methodology: Here, we included 25 consecutive patients with duration of low back pain for 1 month who were not responding to conservative OPD treatment, and also had no reason to suspect any underlying organic disease. Each patient was analyzed on the basis of history and physical examination and a base line X-ray was taken. Results: Here, mean age of patients is 39.8 years with female predominance. According to Q-score there are 13 out of 25 patients are of modrate category, 11 in severe cateogory and rest in extreme category. We further divide these patients into 2 types i.e concavity right side and concavity left side. There are 5 patient of former category and 1 of later. Conclusion:A back-pain questionnaire should be designed and framed according to the life style of the patient i.e. if the patient cannot read or understand the questionnaire than it should be framed in the local language and should be read by investigator. Clinical examination is also an important tool for assessment of patients especially to support and exclude destructive and compressive lesions and also neurological diseases.

show abstract

A longitudinal study of radiological changes in the lumbar spine in asymptomatic Japanese military young adults

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

Guideline summary review: an evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain

Risk factors for episodes of back pain in emerging adults. A systematic review

Evaluation of questionnaire in assessment of low back pain and disability and find correlation between disability score, clinical features and imaging findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About