Cecilie K Øverås1,2, Morten Villumsen1, Iben Axén3, Miriam Cabrita4,5, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde6, Jan Hartvigsen2,7, Paul J Mork1. 1. Department of Public Health and Nursing, NTNU - Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 2. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Roessingh Research and Development, eHealth Group, Enschede, The Netherlands. 5. Biomedical Signals and Systems group, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. 6. Institute of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 7. Nordic Institute of Chiropractic and Clinical Biomechanics, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines recommend physical activity to manage neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP). However, studies used to support these guidelines are based on self-reports of physical behaviour, which are prone to bias and misclassification. This systematic review aimed to investigate associations between objectively measured physical behaviour and the risk or prognosis of NP and/or LBP. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus from their inception until 18 January 2019. We considered prospective cohort studies for eligibility. Article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out by independent reviewers. Results were stratified on activity/sedentariness. RESULTS: Ten articles out of 897 unique records identified met the inclusion criteria, of which eight studied working populations with mainly blue-collar workers. The overall results indicate that increased sitting time at work reduces the risk of NP and LBP while increased physical activity during work and/or leisure increases the risk of these conditions among blue-collar workers; however, associations were weak. Physical activity was not associated with prognosis of LBP (no studies investigated prognosis of NP). Most of the included articles have methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that, among blue-collar workers, increased sitting at work may protect against NP and LBP while increased physical activity during work and/or leisure may increase this risk. There was no evidence supporting physical activity as a prognostic factor for LBP. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to the weak associations and few available studies with methodological shortcomings. SIGNIFICANCE: Based on prospective cohort studies with objectively measured physical behaviour, this review questions the common notion that increased physical activity is associated with reduced risk or better prognosis of NP and/or LBP. We found that, among blue-collar workers, increased sitting time at work reduces the risk of NP and LBP, whereas physical activity somewhat increases the risk. Despite methodological shortcomings, there was consistency in the direction of the results, although high-quality articles reported the weakest associations. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018100765.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Clinical guidelines recommend physical activity to manage neck pain (NP) and low back pain (LBP). However, studies used to support these guidelines are based on self-reports of physical behaviour, which are prone to bias and misclassification. This systematic review aimed to investigate associations between objectively measured physical behaviour and the risk or prognosis of NP and/or LBP. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus from their inception until 18 January 2019. We considered prospective cohort studies for eligibility. Article selection, data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out by independent reviewers. Results were stratified on activity/sedentariness. RESULTS: Ten articles out of 897 unique records identified met the inclusion criteria, of which eight studied working populations with mainly blue-collar workers. The overall results indicate that increased sitting time at work reduces the risk of NP and LBP while increased physical activity during work and/or leisure increases the risk of these conditions among blue-collar workers; however, associations were weak. Physical activity was not associated with prognosis of LBP (no studies investigated prognosis of NP). Most of the included articles have methodological shortcomings. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that, among blue-collar workers, increased sitting at work may protect against NP and LBP while increased physical activity during work and/or leisure may increase this risk. There was no evidence supporting physical activity as a prognostic factor for LBP. Findings should be interpreted with caution due to the weak associations and few available studies with methodological shortcomings. SIGNIFICANCE: Based on prospective cohort studies with objectively measured physical behaviour, this review questions the common notion that increased physical activity is associated with reduced risk or better prognosis of NP and/or LBP. We found that, among blue-collar workers, increased sitting time at work reduces the risk of NP and LBP, whereas physical activity somewhat increases the risk. Despite methodological shortcomings, there was consistency in the direction of the results, although high-quality articles reported the weakest associations. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018100765.
Authors: Francis Q S Dzakpasu; Alison Carver; Christian J Brakenridge; Flavia Cicuttini; Donna M Urquhart; Neville Owen; David W Dunstan Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Nidhi Gupta; Charlotte Lund Rasmussen; Jan Hartvigsen; Ole Steen Mortensen; Els Clays; Ute Bültmann; Andreas Holtermann Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2021-10-09
Authors: Ana Paula Carvalho-E-Silva; Marina B Pinheiro; Manuela L Ferreira; Markus Hübscher; Lucas Calais-Ferreira; Paulo H Ferreira Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Bernard X W Liew; Anneli Peolsson; David Rugamer; Johanna Wibault; Hakan Löfgren; Asa Dedering; Peter Zsigmond; Deborah Falla Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: David M Hallman; Nidhi Gupta; Leticia Bergamin Januario; Andreas Holtermann Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lars L Andersen; Jonas Vinstrup; Emil Sundstrup; Sebastian V Skovlund; Ebbe Villadsen; Sannie V Thorsen Journal: Scand J Work Environ Health Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 5.024
Authors: Rúni Bláfoss; Sebastian Venge Skovlund; Rubén López-Bueno; Joaquin Calatayud; Emil Sundstrup; Lars L Andersen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Lena W Holm; Clara Onell; Martin Carlseus; Robin Ekwurtzel; Olle Holmertz; Tony Bohman; Eva Skillgate Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Anders Fritz Lerche; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Charlotte Lund Rasmussen; Leon Straker; Karen Søgaard; Andreas Holtermann Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 3.295