Gary J Macfarlane1, Marcus Beasley1, Blair H Smith2, Gareth T Jones1, Tatiana V Macfarlane3. 1. Musculoskeletal Research Collaboration (Epidemiology Group), Institute of Applied Health Sciences, The School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 2. Division of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. 3. Dental Hospital, The School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Biobank-type studies are typically large but have very low participation rates. It has been suggested that these studies may provide biased estimates of prevalence but are likely to provide valid estimates of association. We test these hypotheses using data collected on pain in a large Biobank study in the United Kingdom. METHODS: UK Biobank recruited 503,325 persons aged 40-69 years (participation rate 5.5%). Participants completed questionnaires, including pain, lifestyle and environment factors. As a comparison, we used both a large population study of pain (MUSICIAN: n = 8847, aged: 40-69 years) conducted 2008-2009 and the National Child Development study (NCDS) which recruited all persons in Great Britain born during one week of 1958 and followed them up at age 44 years (n = 9377). RESULTS: 'Any pain' (UK Biobank 61.0%; MUSICIAN 63.9%), chronic pain (42.9%, 52.2%) and site-specific musculoskeletal pain (back 26.2%, 29.7%; shoulder/neck 23.3%, 25.3%) were generally similar in UK Biobank and MUSICIAN. The prevalence of chronic pain and most regional musculoskeletal pains in UK Biobank were all within 2% of that in NCDS. CONCLUSION: UK Biobank has provided estimates of the prevalence of pain which are similar to those from previous large-scale studies, although a formal comparison of the estimates cannot be made. It has also confirmed known associations with the reporting of pain. Despite its very low participation rate, such a study provides the opportunity to investigate novel exposure-pain relationships and investigate rarer exposures and characteristics to further our knowledge of the epidemiology of pain.
INTRODUCTION: Biobank-type studies are typically large but have very low participation rates. It has been suggested that these studies may provide biased estimates of prevalence but are likely to provide valid estimates of association. We test these hypotheses using data collected on pain in a large Biobank study in the United Kingdom. METHODS: UK Biobank recruited 503,325 persons aged 40-69 years (participation rate 5.5%). Participants completed questionnaires, including pain, lifestyle and environment factors. As a comparison, we used both a large population study of pain (MUSICIAN: n = 8847, aged: 40-69 years) conducted 2008-2009 and the National Child Development study (NCDS) which recruited all persons in Great Britain born during one week of 1958 and followed them up at age 44 years (n = 9377). RESULTS: 'Any pain' (UK Biobank 61.0%; MUSICIAN 63.9%), chronic pain (42.9%, 52.2%) and site-specific musculoskeletal pain (back 26.2%, 29.7%; shoulder/neck 23.3%, 25.3%) were generally similar in UK Biobank and MUSICIAN. The prevalence of chronic pain and most regional musculoskeletal pains in UK Biobank were all within 2% of that in NCDS. CONCLUSION: UK Biobank has provided estimates of the prevalence of pain which are similar to those from previous large-scale studies, although a formal comparison of the estimates cannot be made. It has also confirmed known associations with the reporting of pain. Despite its very low participation rate, such a study provides the opportunity to investigate novel exposure-pain relationships and investigate rarer exposures and characteristics to further our knowledge of the epidemiology of pain.
Entities:
Keywords:
UK Biobank; associations; musculoskeletal; pain; prevalence
Authors: F Bridgett Rahim-Williams; Joseph L Riley; Dyanne Herrera; Claudia M Campbell; Barbara A Hastie; Roger B Fillingim Journal: Pain Date: 2007-02-12 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: John McBeth; Gordon Prescott; Graham Scotland; Karina Lovell; Philip Keeley; Phil Hannaford; Paul McNamee; Deborah P M Symmons; Steve Woby; Chrysa Gkazinou; Marcus Beasley; Gary J Macfarlane Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2011-11-14
Authors: David P Strachan; Alicja R Rudnicka; Chris Power; Peter Shepherd; Elizabeth Fuller; Adrian Davis; Ian Gibb; Meena Kumari; Ann Rumley; Gary J Macfarlane; Jugnoo Rahi; Bryan Rodgers; Stephen Stansfeld Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Ellen W Yeung; Matthew R Lee; Yoanna McDowell; Kenneth J Sher; Ian R Gizer Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Anna Fry; Thomas J Littlejohns; Cathie Sudlow; Nicola Doherty; Ligia Adamska; Tim Sprosen; Rory Collins; Naomi E Allen Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Katrina A S Davis; Jonathan R I Coleman; Mark Adams; Naomi Allen; Gerome Breen; Breda Cullen; Chris Dickens; Elaine Fox; Nick Graham; Jo Holliday; Louise M Howard; Ann John; William Lee; Rose McCabe; Andrew McIntosh; Robert Pearsall; Daniel J Smith; Cathie Sudlow; Joey Ward; Stan Zammit; Matthew Hotopf Journal: BJPsych Open Date: 2018-04-03
Authors: Pradeep Suri; Ian B Stanaway; Yanfei Zhang; Maxim B Freidin; Yakov A Tsepilov; David S Carrell; Frances M K Williams; Yurii S Aulchenko; Hakon Hakonarson; Bahram Namjou; David R Crosslin; Gail P Jarvik; Ming Ta Lee Journal: Pain Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Michael J Cook; Eftychia Bellou; John Bowes; Jamie C Sergeant; Terence W O'Neill; Anne Barton; Suzanne M M Verstappen Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 7.580