Literature DB >> 28439404

Prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review.

Jean Théroux1,2, Norman Stomski2, Christopher J Hodgetts2, Ariane Ballard1,3, Christelle Khadra1,3, Sylvie Le May1,3, Hubert Labelle1,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis is the most common spinal deformity occurring in adolescents and its established prevalence varies from 2 to 3%. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis has been identified as a potential risk factor for the development of low back pain in adolescents. The purpose of this study was to systematically review studies of the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis in order to establish the quality of the evidence and determine whether the prevalence estimates could be statistically pooled.
METHODS: Systematic electronic searches were undertaken in PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL without any restrictions. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Studies were excluded if they detailed the prevalence of pain in post-surgical subjects or were published in languages other than English or French. Data were reported qualitatively, since there was insufficient evidence for statistical pooling.
RESULTS: The electronic search strategies yielded 1811 unique studies. Only two studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis ranged from 34.7 to 42.0%. However, these prevalence estimates should be viewed cautiously as the included studies were at high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review indicate that adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis frequently experience low back pain. However, there was insufficient evidence to confidently estimate low back pain prevalence in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis and further studies are needed in this area.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis; Low back pain; Prevalence

Year:  2017        PMID: 28439404      PMCID: PMC5399433          DOI: 10.1186/s12998-017-0143-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap        ISSN: 2045-709X


Introduction

In developed countries, low back pain commonly occurs and is a leading cause of disability and financial burden [1]. The epidemiology of low back pain has been extensively researched in adults but is less well understood in adolescents [2]. Estimates of the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents vary widely, but a recent systematic review concluded that the 1-week prevalence was 17.7%, and 12-month prevalence was 33.6% [3]. Low back pain impacts significantly on adolescents, as over nine in ten report disability that may include reduced physical activity, school absenteeism, and limitations in daily activities [4-6]. The Scoliosis Research Society defines adolescent idiopathic scoliosis as a three-dimensional spinal deviation with a greater than 10° Cobb angle of unknown aetiology occurring in adolescents 10 years and older [7]. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis is the most common spinal deformity occurring in adolescents and its established prevalence varies from 2 to 3% [8]. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis has been identified as a potential risk factor for the development of low back pain in adolescents [9]. Subsequently, studies have been undertaken to establish the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Literature reviews have detailed the prevalence of back pain, but not specifically low back pain, in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis [10]. Moreover, such reviews have not assessed the quality of the available evidence, and therefore have not established whether estimates of back pain prevalence may be subject to bias [10]. Hence, the purpose of this study was to systematically review studies examining the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis in order to establish the quality of the evidence and determine whether the prevalence estimates could be statistically pooled.

Methods

The methods used in this review accorded with PRISMA recommendations and the Methodological Evaluation of Observational Research guidelines [11, 12].

Search strategy

Figure 1 displays the search strategies implementation and selection of studies. Database specific search strategies were developed to retrieve English or French language studies that detailed the prevalence of low back pain in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis populations. PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched without any restrictions. Additional file 1 presents the PubMed, CINAHL, and CENTRAL search strategies. The titles and abstracts of the studies retrieved through the searches were independently screened by two reviewers to identify potentially relevant studies that reported the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. In addition, citations in these identified studies were inspected to identify additional relevant studies. Two reviewers obtained full-text copies of all potentially relevant studies and considered them for inclusion in this review.
Fig. 1

PRISMA diagram of the study selection process

PRISMA diagram of the study selection process

Selection criteria

Any study that reported the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis was considered for inclusion in this study. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was defined as a spinal deviation greater than 10° in adolescents aged between 10 and 17 years old [7]. Low back pain was defined as pain located on the posterior aspect of the body from the lower margin of the 12th rib to the lower gluteal folds [13]. Studies were excluded if they detailed the prevalence of pain in post-surgical subjects or were published in languages other than English or French.

Data extraction

One reviewer extracted data from the included studies into an Excel database. Only raw, aggregated prevalence data were extracted since the reported data in the included studies were not standardised or stratified by age, gender or other demographic characteristics. Low back pain case definitions were segmented according to minimum duration of low back pain episode and anatomic location of pain. Other extracted data included: study type, publication date, country, sample size, age, gender, prevalence period, Cobb angle, and data used to assess risk of bias.

Assessment of risk of bias for included studies

Two reviewers assessed risk of bias for each included study, using a reliable purpose built tool [14]. This tool comprises 10 items that evaluate measurement bias, selection bias, and bias resulting from the analysis method. Discrepancies in the risk of bias assessment were resolved through consensus.

Data analysis

All data were extracted into spreadsheets and then compared between reviewers to ensure consistency. Prevalence estimates were reported qualitatively since there was insufficient data for statistical pooling.

Grading the strength of evidence

The GRADE Working Group grades of evidence were used to establish the overall strength of the evidence [15]. These grades are as follows: High quality: Further research very unlikely to alter confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research very likely to have an important impact on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: Any estimate is very uncertain.

Results

Study selection

The electronic search strategies yielded 1811 unique studies (Fig. 1). Abstract and title screening identified 51 potentially relevant studies, for which full-text articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. An additional two potentially relevant studies were identified through inspection of the reference lists in the retrieved full-text articles. Of the retrieved full-text articles, two satisfied the eligibility criteria and were included in this review [16, 17].

Study characteristics

Table 1 displays the included studies’ characteristics. All included studies used cross-sectional study designs and assessed low back pain through self-report questionnaires. In one study 85% of the respondents were female [16] and in the other study, all respondents were female [17]. The mean age of the respondents in one study was 14.2 years [16], and 14.7 years in the other study [17]. One study was conducted in Canada [16] and the other study was undertaken in Japan [17]. Neither of the prevalence estimates was standardised by age, gender, or other demographic characteristics.
Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

CountryCitationSample SizeResponse RateYear of publicationRisk of biasStudy populationCase DefinitionPrevalence periodPrevalence (%)Standard error (%)
CanadaTheroux et al. [16]500Not Applicable2016HighAdolescents aged 10–17; 85% femaleLBP >1 dayPoint42.0%Not Reported
JapanMakino et al. [17]98Not Applicable2015HighAdolescents; undefined age range; 100% femaleLBP1 week34.7%Not Reported
Characteristics of included studies

Definitions of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Both included studies defined the eligibility criteria for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis as people aged 10–17 years with a Cobb angle of more than 10° [16, 17].

Prevalence of low back pain and prevalence period

In one study the prevalence of low back pain was 42.0% with a prevalence period of the prior 24 h [16], and in the other study low back pain prevalence was 34.7% with a prevalence period of 1 week [17]. Neither of the included studies reported confidence intervals or other forms of error margins.

Case definitions

Neither study reported minimum episode duration required to establish a case of low back pain. The anatomic location of pain was detailed as “low back pain” in one study [17] and “‘lumbar” in the other study [16], but neither study precisely specified the regions encompassed by these locations.

Risk of bias

Table 2 summarises the risk of bias assessment. Both studies were at high risk of bias for five items.
Table 2

Risk of bias across the included studies

Theroux et al. 2016 [16]Makino et al. 2015 [17]
Study’s target population close representation of the national population for relevant variables.High RiskHigh Risk
Sampling frame a true or close representation of the target populationHigh RiskHigh Risk
Random selection used to select the sample or census undertakenHigh RiskHigh Risk
Likelihood of non-response bias minimalLow RiskLow Risk
Data collected directly from the subjectsHigh RiskHigh Risk
Acceptable case definition used in the studyHigh RiskHigh Risk
Study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have reliability and validityLow RiskLow Risk
Same mode of data collection used for all subjectsLow RiskLow Risk
Length of the shortest prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriateLow RiskLow Risk
Numerator and denominator for the parameter of interest appropriateLow RiskLow Risk
Risk of bias across the included studies

Overall strength of the evidence

The overall strength of the evidence was considered to be very low quality, in terms of GRADE classifications.

Discussion

This systematic review was the first to assess the prevalence of low back in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The findings show that the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis ranges from 34.7 to 42.0%. However, the results of this review are based on a limited number of studies at substantial risk of bias. Subsequently, further studies are very likely to have a significant impact on estimates of low back pain prevalence in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Taken at face value, our findings suggest that over one-third of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis experience low back pain. In contrast, a recent systematic review of low back pain in the general adolescent population found that the point prevalence was 12.0% and 1-week prevalence was 17.7% [3]. This tentatively suggests that adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis may be at least twice as likely to experience low back pain as adolescents without scoliosis. Again though, additional studies are required to improve the precision of estimates of low back pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. The results of this systematic review have identified numerous methodological limitations in prevalence studies of pain in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. One such limitation involved the use of unclear definitions of low back pain. Some of the excluded studies reported the prevalence of back pain, but could not be included since it was unclear if the pain was located in the low back or other regions of the back. Hence, the location of back pain should be reported according to standardised anatomic definitions in subsequent studies [13]. Another limitation of low back pain prevalence studies in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis was the lack of longitudinal monitoring. Without such longitudinal studies, it cannot be established whether cases of low back pain are acute, brief and transitory, or if these cases are recurrent or chronic [18, 19]. It is important to establish whether cases of low back pain in adolescent scoliosis are chronic or recurrent since in these instances the impact on quality of life and burden are likely to be worse than in acute cases [20, 21]. Hence, longitudinal studies of low back pain in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are warranted, and the findings should be reported by using standardised definitions of low back pain episodes [22, 23]. Notably omitted from the included studies was the presentation of confidence intervals or other forms of error margins. The lack of error margins makes it difficult to discern the precision of the low back pain prevalence estimates [24]. Also, the omission of error margins does not enable statistical pooling. Error margins can generally be estimated from other data presented in articles or data derived from other sources, but the interpretation of the prevalence estimates detailed in articles would be much enhanced by the presentation of error margins [24]. The lack of demographic factor segmentation was also a methodological shortcoming of the included studies. While one of the included studies had a gender distribution that was close to typical of the occurrence of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents, the other study’s sample consisted completely of females. Such imbalances may bias the estimation of low back pain prevalence [25]. Also, none of the studies reported pain prevalence by age bands. If data were broken down by age segments, then it would be possible to establish the trajectory of low back pain prevalence in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Finally, low back pain prevalence in adolescent scoliosis should also be classified according to socio-economic status, as it has been associated low back pain in general adolescent populations [25, 26]. The final main limitation of the included studies that needs to be considered was the selection of study samples. In the included studies, the sample sizes were relatively modest and drawn from a single location. Such samples may lead to selection bias, and population-based studies are required to address this issue [25].

Limitations

The findings of this review are likely to be influenced by publication bias that may have inflated the estimates of low back pain prevalence in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis [27]. However, an extensive search was undertaken to identify potentially relevant studies, which should mitigate the impact of publication bias. Also, the risk of bias was assessed for each included prevalence estimate, and we have drawn careful, tentative conclusions on the basis of this assessment.

Conclusion

The results of this systematic review indicate that adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis frequently experience low back pain. However, there was insufficient evidence to confidently estimate low back pain prevalence in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis and further studies are needed in this area. Moreover, the studies included in this review had numerous methodological weaknesses that researchers should address in subsequent studies. Such limitations include the use of standardised definitions of anatomic low back pain location and episode durations; reporting of prevalence error margins; segmentation of low back pain prevalence by relevant demographic characteristics; monitoring of low back pain prevalence at regular intervals over extended periods; and the use of population-based study cohorts.
  25 in total

1.  Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.

Authors:  Damian Hoy; Peter Brooks; Anthony Woolf; Fiona Blyth; Lyn March; Chris Bain; Peter Baker; Emma Smith; Rachelle Buchbinder
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Back Pain Prevalence Is Associated With Curve-type and Severity in Adolescents With Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Cross-sectional Study.

Authors:  Jean Théroux; Sylvie Le May; Jeffrey J Hebert; Hubert Labelle
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 3.  Trajectories of low back pain.

Authors:  Iben Axén; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 4.098

4.  Risk factors for non-specific low back pain in schoolchildren and their parents: a population based study.

Authors:  Francisco M Kovacs; Mario Gestoso; María Teresa Gil Del Real; Javier López; Nicole Mufraggi; José Ignacio Méndez
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  A consensus approach toward the standardization of back pain definitions for use in prevalence studies.

Authors:  Clermont E Dionne; Kate M Dunn; Peter R Croft; Alf L Nachemson; Rachelle Buchbinder; Bruce F Walker; Mary Wyatt; J David Cassidy; Michel Rossignol; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde; Jan Hartvigsen; Päivi Leino-Arjas; Ute Latza; Shmuel Reis; Maria Teresa Gil Del Real; Francisco M Kovacs; Birgitta Oberg; Christine Cedraschi; Lex M Bouter; Bart W Koes; H Susan J Picavet; Maurits W van Tulder; Kim Burton; Nadine E Foster; Gary J Macfarlane; Elaine Thomas; Martin Underwood; Gordon Waddell; Paul Shekelle; Ernest Volinn; Michael Von Korff
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Does socioeconomic status in adolescence predict low back pain in adulthood? A repeated cross-sectional study of 4,771 Danish adolescents.

Authors:  Lise Hestbaek; Lars Korsholm; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde; Kirsten Ohm Kyvik
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-10-02       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Luciola da C Menezes Costa; Christopher G Maher; Mark J Hancock; James H McAuley; Robert D Herbert; Leonardo O P Costa
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2012-05-14       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

Authors:  Theo Vos; Abraham D Flaxman; Mohsen Naghavi; Rafael Lozano; Catherine Michaud; Majid Ezzati; Kenji Shibuya; Joshua A Salomon; Safa Abdalla; Victor Aboyans; Jerry Abraham; Ilana Ackerman; Rakesh Aggarwal; Stephanie Y Ahn; Mohammed K Ali; Miriam Alvarado; H Ross Anderson; Laurie M Anderson; Kathryn G Andrews; Charles Atkinson; Larry M Baddour; Adil N Bahalim; Suzanne Barker-Collo; Lope H Barrero; David H Bartels; Maria-Gloria Basáñez; Amanda Baxter; Michelle L Bell; Emelia J Benjamin; Derrick Bennett; Eduardo Bernabé; Kavi Bhalla; Bishal Bhandari; Boris Bikbov; Aref Bin Abdulhak; Gretchen Birbeck; James A Black; Hannah Blencowe; Jed D Blore; Fiona Blyth; Ian Bolliger; Audrey Bonaventure; Soufiane Boufous; Rupert Bourne; Michel Boussinesq; Tasanee Braithwaite; Carol Brayne; Lisa Bridgett; Simon Brooker; Peter Brooks; Traolach S Brugha; Claire Bryan-Hancock; Chiara Bucello; Rachelle Buchbinder; Geoffrey Buckle; Christine M Budke; Michael Burch; Peter Burney; Roy Burstein; Bianca Calabria; Benjamin Campbell; Charles E Canter; Hélène Carabin; Jonathan Carapetis; Loreto Carmona; Claudia Cella; Fiona Charlson; Honglei Chen; Andrew Tai-Ann Cheng; David Chou; Sumeet S Chugh; Luc E Coffeng; Steven D Colan; Samantha Colquhoun; K Ellicott Colson; John Condon; Myles D Connor; Leslie T Cooper; Matthew Corriere; Monica Cortinovis; Karen Courville de Vaccaro; William Couser; Benjamin C Cowie; Michael H Criqui; Marita Cross; Kaustubh C Dabhadkar; Manu Dahiya; Nabila Dahodwala; James Damsere-Derry; Goodarz Danaei; Adrian Davis; Diego De Leo; Louisa Degenhardt; Robert Dellavalle; Allyne Delossantos; Julie Denenberg; Sarah Derrett; Don C Des Jarlais; Samath D Dharmaratne; Mukesh Dherani; Cesar Diaz-Torne; Helen Dolk; E Ray Dorsey; Tim Driscoll; Herbert Duber; Beth Ebel; Karen Edmond; Alexis Elbaz; Suad Eltahir Ali; Holly Erskine; Patricia J Erwin; Patricia Espindola; Stalin E Ewoigbokhan; Farshad Farzadfar; Valery Feigin; David T Felson; Alize Ferrari; Cleusa P Ferri; Eric M Fèvre; Mariel M Finucane; Seth Flaxman; Louise Flood; Kyle Foreman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Francis Gerry R Fowkes; Richard Franklin; Marlene Fransen; Michael K Freeman; Belinda J Gabbe; Sherine E Gabriel; Emmanuela Gakidou; Hammad A Ganatra; Bianca Garcia; Flavio Gaspari; Richard F Gillum; Gerhard Gmel; Richard Gosselin; Rebecca Grainger; Justina Groeger; Francis Guillemin; David Gunnell; Ramyani Gupta; Juanita Haagsma; Holly Hagan; Yara A Halasa; Wayne Hall; Diana Haring; Josep Maria Haro; James E Harrison; Rasmus Havmoeller; Roderick J Hay; Hideki Higashi; Catherine Hill; Bruno Hoen; Howard Hoffman; Peter J Hotez; Damian Hoy; John J Huang; Sydney E Ibeanusi; Kathryn H Jacobsen; Spencer L James; Deborah Jarvis; Rashmi Jasrasaria; Sudha Jayaraman; Nicole Johns; Jost B Jonas; Ganesan Karthikeyan; Nicholas Kassebaum; Norito Kawakami; Andre Keren; Jon-Paul Khoo; Charles H King; Lisa Marie Knowlton; Olive Kobusingye; Adofo Koranteng; Rita Krishnamurthi; Ratilal Lalloo; Laura L Laslett; Tim Lathlean; Janet L Leasher; Yong Yi Lee; James Leigh; Stephen S Lim; Elizabeth Limb; John Kent Lin; Michael Lipnick; Steven E Lipshultz; Wei Liu; Maria Loane; Summer Lockett Ohno; Ronan Lyons; Jixiang Ma; Jacqueline Mabweijano; Michael F MacIntyre; Reza Malekzadeh; Leslie Mallinger; Sivabalan Manivannan; Wagner Marcenes; Lyn March; David J Margolis; Guy B Marks; Robin Marks; Akira Matsumori; Richard Matzopoulos; Bongani M Mayosi; John H McAnulty; Mary M McDermott; Neil McGill; John McGrath; Maria Elena Medina-Mora; Michele Meltzer; George A Mensah; Tony R Merriman; Ana-Claire Meyer; Valeria Miglioli; Matthew Miller; Ted R Miller; Philip B Mitchell; Ana Olga Mocumbi; Terrie E Moffitt; Ali A Mokdad; Lorenzo Monasta; Marcella Montico; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Andrew Moran; Lidia Morawska; Rintaro Mori; Michele E Murdoch; Michael K Mwaniki; Kovin Naidoo; M Nathan Nair; Luigi Naldi; K M Venkat Narayan; Paul K Nelson; Robert G Nelson; Michael C Nevitt; Charles R Newton; Sandra Nolte; Paul Norman; Rosana Norman; Martin O'Donnell; Simon O'Hanlon; Casey Olives; Saad B Omer; Katrina Ortblad; Richard Osborne; Doruk Ozgediz; Andrew Page; Bishnu Pahari; Jeyaraj Durai Pandian; Andrea Panozo Rivero; Scott B Patten; Neil Pearce; Rogelio Perez Padilla; Fernando Perez-Ruiz; Norberto Perico; Konrad Pesudovs; David Phillips; Michael R Phillips; Kelsey Pierce; Sébastien Pion; Guilherme V Polanczyk; Suzanne Polinder; C Arden Pope; Svetlana Popova; Esteban Porrini; Farshad Pourmalek; Martin Prince; Rachel L Pullan; Kapa D Ramaiah; Dharani Ranganathan; Homie Razavi; Mathilda Regan; Jürgen T Rehm; David B Rein; Guiseppe Remuzzi; Kathryn Richardson; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Roberts; Carolyn Robinson; Felipe Rodriguez De Leòn; Luca Ronfani; Robin Room; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Lesley Rushton; Ralph L Sacco; Sukanta Saha; Uchechukwu Sampson; Lidia Sanchez-Riera; Ella Sanman; David C Schwebel; James Graham Scott; Maria Segui-Gomez; Saeid Shahraz; Donald S Shepard; Hwashin Shin; Rupak Shivakoti; David Singh; Gitanjali M Singh; Jasvinder A Singh; Jessica Singleton; David A Sleet; Karen Sliwa; Emma Smith; Jennifer L Smith; Nicolas J C Stapelberg; Andrew Steer; Timothy Steiner; Wilma A Stolk; Lars Jacob Stovner; Christopher Sudfeld; Sana Syed; Giorgio Tamburlini; Mohammad Tavakkoli; Hugh R Taylor; Jennifer A Taylor; William J Taylor; Bernadette Thomas; W Murray Thomson; George D Thurston; Imad M Tleyjeh; Marcello Tonelli; Jeffrey A Towbin; Thomas Truelsen; Miltiadis K Tsilimbaris; Clotilde Ubeda; Eduardo A Undurraga; Marieke J van der Werf; Jim van Os; Monica S Vavilala; N Venketasubramanian; Mengru Wang; Wenzhi Wang; Kerrianne Watt; David J Weatherall; Martin A Weinstock; Robert Weintraub; Marc G Weisskopf; Myrna M Weissman; Richard A White; Harvey Whiteford; Steven T Wiersma; James D Wilkinson; Hywel C Williams; Sean R M Williams; Emma Witt; Frederick Wolfe; Anthony D Woolf; Sarah Wulf; Pon-Hsiu Yeh; Anita K M Zaidi; Zhi-Jie Zheng; David Zonies; Alan D Lopez; Christopher J L Murray; Mohammad A AlMazroa; Ziad A Memish
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 9.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Jan P Vandenbroucke; Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Cynthia D Mulrow; Stuart J Pocock; Charles Poole; James J Schlesselman; Matthias Egger
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  What have we learned from ten years of trajectory research in low back pain?

Authors:  Alice Kongsted; Peter Kent; Iben Axen; Aron S Downie; Kate M Dunn
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  10 in total

1.  How Common Is Back Pain and What Biopsychosocial Factors Are Associated With Back Pain in Patients With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis?

Authors:  Arnold Y L Wong; Dino Samartzis; Prudence W H Cheung; Jason Pui Yin Cheung
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  An investigation of sleep profiles in individuals with idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Yavuz Yakut; Zerrin Pelin; Gozde Yagci
Journal:  Sleep Sci       Date:  2022 Apr-Jun

3.  Tracking low back pain in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective cohort study protocol.

Authors:  Jean Théroux; Norman Stomski; Christopher J Hodgetts; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde; Bruce F Walker; Sylvie Le May; Hubert Labelle
Journal:  Chiropr Man Therap       Date:  2017-09-05

4.  Effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises for alleviating adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yunli Fan; Qing Ren; Michael Kai Tsun To; Jason Pui Yin Cheung
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Association between adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and sacroiliac joint dysfunction in young athletes: A case control study.

Authors:  Zoran Šarčević; Andreja Tepavčević
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Upregulation of cGMP-dependent Protein Kinase (PRKG1) in the Development of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

Authors:  Cang-Long Hou; Bo Li; Ya-Jun Cheng; Ming Li; Zong-de Yang
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 2.071

Review 7.  Etiology, Risk Factors, and Diagnosis of Back Pain in Children and Adolescents: Evidence- and Consensus-Based Interdisciplinary Recommendations.

Authors:  Michael Frosch; Maximilian D Mauritz; Stefan Bielack; Susanne Blödt; Uta Dirksen; Michael Dobe; Florian Geiger; Renate Häfner; Lea Höfel; Bettina Hübner-Möhler; Thekla von Kalle; Burkhard Lawrenz; Andreas Leutner; Frauke Mecher; Kiril Mladenov; Heike Norda; Lorin Stahlschmidt; Marc Steinborn; Ralf Stücker; Ralf Trauzeddel; Regina Trollmann; Julia Wager; Boris Zernikow
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-02

8.  Risk Factors, Lifestyle and Prevention among Adolescents with Idiopathic Juvenile Scoliosis: A Cross Sectional Study in Eleven First-Grade Secondary Schools of Palermo Province, Italy.

Authors:  Dalila Scaturro; Claudio Costantino; Pietro Terrana; Fabio Vitagliani; Vincenzo Falco; Daniele Cuntrera; Claudia Emilia Sannasardo; Francesco Vitale; Giulia Letizia Mauro
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-11-24       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Prevalence and Predictors of Scoliosis and Back Pain in 591 Adolescents: A Randomized, Stratified, Cross-Sectional Study in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Suhail S AlAssiri; Sami I Aleissa; Ali A Alhandi; Faisal M Konbaz; Fahad Alhelal; Majed Abaalkhail; Monerah M Al-Annaim; Abdulrahman Alhabeeb; Khaled M Alshehri
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-07-01

10.  Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: evaluating perioperative back pain through a simultaneous morphological and biomechanical approach.

Authors:  Maxime St-Georges; Alisson R Teles; Oded Rabau; Neil Saran; Jean A Ouellet; Catherine E Ferland
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 2.362

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.