Cargando…

Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population

BACKGROUND: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem, with variation in prevalence. Epidemiological reports of rating of pain intensity and location within the low back area are rare. The objective is to describe LBP in a large, multi-center, occupational cohort detailing both point and 1-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thiese, Matthew S, Hegmann, Kurt T, Wood, Eric M, Garg, Arun, Moore, J Steven, Kapellusch, Jay, Foster, James, Ott, Ulrike
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4153910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25146722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-283
_version_ 1782333351325073408
author Thiese, Matthew S
Hegmann, Kurt T
Wood, Eric M
Garg, Arun
Moore, J Steven
Kapellusch, Jay
Foster, James
Ott, Ulrike
author_facet Thiese, Matthew S
Hegmann, Kurt T
Wood, Eric M
Garg, Arun
Moore, J Steven
Kapellusch, Jay
Foster, James
Ott, Ulrike
author_sort Thiese, Matthew S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem, with variation in prevalence. Epidemiological reports of rating of pain intensity and location within the low back area are rare. The objective is to describe LBP in a large, multi-center, occupational cohort detailing both point and 1-month period prevalence of LBP by location and intensity measures at baseline. METHODS: In this cross-sectional report from a prospective cohort study, 828 participants were workers enrolled from 30 facilities performing a variety of manual material handling tasks. All participants underwent a structured interview detailing pain rating and location. Symptoms in the lower extremities, demographic and other data were collected. Body mass indices were measured. Outcomes are pain rating (0–10) in five defined lumbar back areas (i) LBP in the past month and (ii) LBP on the day of enrollment. Pain ratings were reported on a 0–10 scale and subsequently collapsed with ratings of 1–3, 4–6 and 7–10 classified as low, medium and high respectively. RESULTS: 172 (20.8%) and 364 (44.0%) of the 828 participants reported pain on the day of enrollment or within the past month, respectively. The most common area of LBP was in the immediate paraspinal area with 130 (75.6%) participants with point prevalence LBP and 278 (77.4%) with 1-month period prevalence reported having LBP in the immediate paraspinal area. Among those 364 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain, ratings varied widely with 116 (31.9%) reporting ratings classified as low, 170 (46.7%) medium and 78 (21.4%) providing high pain ratings in any location. Among the 278 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain in the immediate paraspinal area, 89 (32.0%) reported ratings classified as low, 129 (46.4%), medium and 60 (21.6%) high pain ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Pain ratings varied widely, however less variability was seen in pain location, with immediate paraspinal region being the most common. Variations may suggest different etiological factors related to LBP. Aggregation of different locations of pain or different intensities of pain into one binary classification of LBP may result in loss of information which may potentially be useful in prevention or treatment of LBP. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-283) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4153910
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41539102014-09-05 Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population Thiese, Matthew S Hegmann, Kurt T Wood, Eric M Garg, Arun Moore, J Steven Kapellusch, Jay Foster, James Ott, Ulrike BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem, with variation in prevalence. Epidemiological reports of rating of pain intensity and location within the low back area are rare. The objective is to describe LBP in a large, multi-center, occupational cohort detailing both point and 1-month period prevalence of LBP by location and intensity measures at baseline. METHODS: In this cross-sectional report from a prospective cohort study, 828 participants were workers enrolled from 30 facilities performing a variety of manual material handling tasks. All participants underwent a structured interview detailing pain rating and location. Symptoms in the lower extremities, demographic and other data were collected. Body mass indices were measured. Outcomes are pain rating (0–10) in five defined lumbar back areas (i) LBP in the past month and (ii) LBP on the day of enrollment. Pain ratings were reported on a 0–10 scale and subsequently collapsed with ratings of 1–3, 4–6 and 7–10 classified as low, medium and high respectively. RESULTS: 172 (20.8%) and 364 (44.0%) of the 828 participants reported pain on the day of enrollment or within the past month, respectively. The most common area of LBP was in the immediate paraspinal area with 130 (75.6%) participants with point prevalence LBP and 278 (77.4%) with 1-month period prevalence reported having LBP in the immediate paraspinal area. Among those 364 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain, ratings varied widely with 116 (31.9%) reporting ratings classified as low, 170 (46.7%) medium and 78 (21.4%) providing high pain ratings in any location. Among the 278 reporting 1-month period prevalence pain in the immediate paraspinal area, 89 (32.0%) reported ratings classified as low, 129 (46.4%), medium and 60 (21.6%) high pain ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Pain ratings varied widely, however less variability was seen in pain location, with immediate paraspinal region being the most common. Variations may suggest different etiological factors related to LBP. Aggregation of different locations of pain or different intensities of pain into one binary classification of LBP may result in loss of information which may potentially be useful in prevention or treatment of LBP. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-283) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4153910/ /pubmed/25146722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-283 Text en © Thiese et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Thiese, Matthew S
Hegmann, Kurt T
Wood, Eric M
Garg, Arun
Moore, J Steven
Kapellusch, Jay
Foster, James
Ott, Ulrike
Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population
title Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population
title_full Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population
title_fullStr Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population
title_full_unstemmed Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population
title_short Prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population
title_sort prevalence of low back pain by anatomic location and intensity in an occupational population
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4153910/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25146722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-283
work_keys_str_mv AT thiesematthews prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation
AT hegmannkurtt prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation
AT woodericm prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation
AT gargarun prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation
AT moorejsteven prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation
AT kapelluschjay prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation
AT fosterjames prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation
AT ottulrike prevalenceoflowbackpainbyanatomiclocationandintensityinanoccupationalpopulation