HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Loney, P. L Articles by Stratford, P. W Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Loney, P. L Articles by Stratford, P. W Related Collections Injuries and Conditions: Low Back Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

The Prevalence of Low Back Pain in Adults: A Methodological Review of the Literature

PL Loney, BHSc(PT), BA, is Master of Science Degree Candidate, Health Research Methods Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
PW Stratford, PT, is Associate Professor, School of Rehabilitation Science, and Associate Member, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University. Address all correspondence to Mr Stratford at Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, OT/PT Bldg T-16, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4K1 (stratfor{at}mcmaster.ca)

Submitted June 15, 1998; Accepted January 13, 1999

	Abstract

 
The prevalence of low back pain (LBP) has been reported in the literature for different populations. Methodological differences among studies and lack of methodological rigor have made it difficult to draw conclusions from these studies. A systematic review was done for adult community prevalence studies of LBP published from 1981 to 1998. The technique of capture-recapture was performed to estimate the completeness of the search strategy used. Established guidelines and a methodological scoring system were used to critically appraise the studies. Thirteen studies were deemed methodologically acceptable. Differences in the duration of LBP used in the studies appeared to affect the prevalence rates reported and explain much of the variation seen. It was estimated that the point prevalence rate in North America is 5.6%. Further studies using superior methods are needed, however, before this estimate can be used with confidence to make health care policies and decisions relating to physical therapy.

Key Words: Low back pain • Prevalence

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References

 
One definition of low back pain (LBP) is any back pain between the ribs and the top of the leg, from any cause.¹ Low back pain is an important public health problem in all industrialized nations.^2,3 Although most people appear to recover quickly from an episode of LBP, disability resulting from back pain is more common than any other cause of activity limitation in adults aged less than 45 years and second only to arthritis in people aged 45 to 65 years.¹

Prevalence is the number of people in a defined population who have a specified disease or condition at a point in time.⁴ Prevalence is usually measured by surveying a particular population containing individuals with and without the condition of interest.⁵ Thus, prevalence equals number of people with a health problem at a point in time divided by the total defined population alive at this point in time. Prevalence rates are usually reported as percentages. Prevalence is the result of many factors: (1) the periodic number of new cases, (2) the immigration and emigration of people with disease, and (3) the duration of illness.⁴ Because LBP is a condition that often resolves completely, individuals can be counted as having prevalent cases if pain reoccurs. This is different from chronic conditions that do not resolve (eg, rheumatoid arthritis).

Point prevalence is measured at a single point in time (ie, the number of people reporting LBP on the day of a survey).⁶ Period prevalence is measured over a specified time period, usually 1 year (ie, those people who report having had LBP in the past 12 months). In contrast, incidence refers to the number of new cases occurring during a period of time among a group initially free of the disorder.⁴ The cumulative incidence or lifetime incidence is the total number of people who have or have had the condition during their lifetime. Deyo and Tsui-Wu⁷ also refer to this as the cumulative lifetime prevalence. Thus, it appears that there is confusion in the literature with respect to the use of the terms "lifetime incidence" and "lifetime prevalence." Figure 1 illustrates 10 cases of LBP in a hypothetical population of 20 individuals from 1993 to 1998. Calculations of period prevalence, point prevalence, annual incidence, and cumulative incidence are provided as examples to clarify definitions.

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 1. Prevalence and incidence of low back pain (LBP) in a hypothetical population (N=20). In this example, 20 people were followed over a 5-year period. Ten cases (A–J) were identified during this period. The double-arrowed lines indicate the onset and duration of the cases.

The purposes of this review are (1) to apply the afore-mentioned methodological guidelines to the literature on community prevalence of LBP and assign an overall methodological score, (2) to compare studies determined to be methodologically acceptable in an attempt to draw conclusions about the prevalence of LBP in the world population, (3) to estimate of the point prevalence of LBP in North America, and (4) to make suggestions for improving the methodological quality of these types of studies.

	Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References

 
Search Strategy

Some authors¹³ have suggested that several overlapping search strategies should be used to ensure that as many as possible of the available articles are included in a literature review. A search of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and Science Citation CD-ROM systems from 1981 to 1998 was conducted for this review. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) headings "low back pain" (focused to epidemiology) and "prevalence" were used. The search was limited to studies printed in English and to the study of adults (ages 19–64 years). Only community-based prevalence studies were used for this review. Studies of groups in the community (eg, health care workers, industrial workers, military) were excluded.

The search strategy for this review was as follows:

Step 1. The reference lists of articles identified by MEDLINE (1981–present) were searched for other relevant publications. We refer to this process as a hand search. MEDLINE citations and hand-searched articles were grouped together and called the MEDLINE search strategy.

Step 2. CINAHL CD-ROM (1981–present) was searched. Selected articles were hand searched for relevant publications. Relevant citations and hand-searched articles were grouped together and called the CINAHL search strategy.

Step 3. Science Citation CD-ROM (1981–present) was searched for appropriate articles.

Estimating the Completeness of the Search

Capture-recapture methods are derived from the technique used in ecological studies in which animals are captured, marked, released, and recaptured for population estimates.¹⁴ Recently, these methods have been applied in epidemiology to estimate the degree of overlap between 2 or more search strategies. Simple formulas are used to obtain an estimate of the total size of the population, also known as the horizon,¹⁴ or, in our search of the literature, the total number of articles available. This procedure enables a researcher to estimate the number of publications that were not identified by the search strategy in order to evaluate the completeness of a systematic literature search.

The first step of our process was to define the search strategy and the steps for obtaining articles for the review. We did this to ensure the reproducibility of the search, which will allow other researchers to judge the validity of our strategy. Spoor et al¹⁴ used articles in a journal found by MEDLINE versus an independent hand search of the same journal. The search strategy for our review is defined above. In this case, the hand-search component was combined with the associated CD-ROM search because articles obtained by hand searching were found from references obtained by the CD-ROM search. Next, we constructed a contingency table to show the number of articles identified by each search strategy and the amount of overlap between strategies. Only 2 search strategies (MEDLINE and CINAHL) were appropriate, because no articles were found in Science Citation. Thus, a 2 x 2 table was constructed (Tab. 3). The contingency table shows the extent of overlap in the number of articles found and not found by the MEDLINE and CINAHL search strategies. In this table, the cell of "not found" by both search strategies (X) is unknown, and it is this cell that will ultimately be estimated.

Critical Appraisal and Scoring

The primary author appraised each article using a worksheet that summarizes the criteria outlined by Loney et al¹⁰ (see Appendix for a sample of the worksheet used). A scoring system was developed to rate the quality of the studies reviewed (Tab. 4). We agreed that each item would be weighted equally because we did not believe that one item was more important than the other items. Each item was given a score of 10 points, with the maximum score being 90 points. The weighting of items equally has support in the literature. Streiner and Norman¹⁶ explained that unequal weighting of items in a scale consisting of relatively homogeneous items contributes relatively little, except added complexity. Dixon et al¹⁷ used equal weighting in their rating scales for the critical appraisal of articles on clinical agreement, diagnosis, causation, therapy, prognosis, and overview.

Specification of a Comparison Measure

Point prevalence was chosen as the primary epidemiologic comparison measure (ie, subjects' report of LBP at the time of the survey). Although other measures of prevalence are provided in many studies (ie, period and lifetime prevalence), point prevalence has the advantage of not being based on recollection. "Memory decay" is a phenomenon associated with increasingly forgetting events (eg, past episodes of LBP) with the passage of time.⁹ The longer time has passed, the more likely a person is to forget the event. This would tend to cause an underestimate of the reporting of LBP event, thus lowering the prevalence rate. Recollection bias was supported in a study by Carey et al.²¹ In contrast, the phenomenon of "forward telescoping" (tendency to recollect events as occurring more recently then they actually did) tends to have the opposite effect on the prevalence rate.⁹ Forward telescoping tends to increase the reporting of LBP in a specified time period, thus overestimating the prevalence rate. Carey et al²¹ stated that these recall biases may offset each other. The use of point prevalence, however, is supposed to eliminate such assumptions and thus was used as the main comparison in our review of the literature, although other prevalence rates will be provided and compared.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References

 
Eighteen studies were reviewed from the years 1981 to 1998. Twelve of these studies were conducted in Europe, 5 studies were conducted in North America, and 1 study was conducted in China. All studies dealt with the prevalence of LBP in adults. The studies yielded different types of prevalence estimates (ie, point, period, lifetime) and included different subgroups of the community. The researchers used different durations of LBP in their estimates. Generally, the definition for LBP was consistent. Some authors, however, did not define LBP. Many researchers used a body diagram for clarification of the definition of LBP.

Completeness of Search Strategy

Using the capture-mark-recapture technique, the estimate of the total population size of the available articles was 18 (95% confidence interval=16,20), rounded to the nearest whole number (Tab. 3). The number of articles missed by this search strategy was estimated to be 0. Thus, the overall search strategy can be considered complete.

Methodological Quality

Table 5 presents the results of the critical appraisal of articles reviewed and the overall methodological quality scores calculated.^7,22–38 Three studies^22,26,29 were given scores of 70 points or more and were considered of high quality. Studies given scores of 45 points or more were considered to be of moderate quality and were selected for further comparison to determine trends in methodology and prevalence rates. Van Tulder et al³⁹ used a cutoff of one half of the total methodological score in their critical review of the effectiveness of conservative treatment for LBP. Thirteen studies were given a score of 45 points or more, and we deemed these studies to be methodologically acceptable. The most common methodological problems identified in this group of studies were the following: (1) failure to provide validity and reliability data on the survey questions that participants were asked, (2) lack of precise estimates (95% confidence intervals) of the prevalence rates provided, and (3) no comparison of study participants and nonparticipants to determine the generalizability of the sample obtained.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 2. Point prevalence estimates from methodologically acceptable studies by duration of low back pain (LBP).

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 3. One-year prevalence rates from methodologically acceptable studies by duration of low back pain (LBP). ADL=activities of daily living.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 4. Point prevalence estimates by age in studies reviewed. LBP=low back pain.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References

A second reason for the range of prevalence rates that we observed is the varying methodological quality among studies, as indicated by the scores obtained. The cutoff of 45 points or more as methodologically acceptable seems generous to us. The point prevalence rates in the 3 studies^22,26,29 that were given very high quality scores (70) were 13.7%, 28.7%, and 19%, respectively. One-year prevalence rates were similar in the studies of Biering-Sorensen²² (44.9%) and Hillman et al²⁹ (39%). Cassidy et al²⁶ reported a 6-month prevalence rate of 68.8%. In these studies, similar definitions were used for duration of LBP. We feel more confident in making conclusions about LBP prevalence from these studies because of their methodological strength.

The disparity in LBP prevalence rates among studies of similar methodological rigor, although smaller in methodologically superior studies, leads us to consider factors other than methodological issues to help explain differences. Age appears to be one factor influencing the prevalence rates in the studies reviewed. The methodologically acceptable studies that provided subgroup estimates by age demonstrated varying LBP point prevalence with age. The younger patients (aged 20–35 years) had lower prevalence rates in all studies reviewed. Prevalence estimates then increased in the middle years (ages 40–60 years), with the exception of the group surveyed by Biering-Sorensen.²² After 60 years of age, the point prevalence rates tended to decline again. Deyo and Tsui-Wu⁷ stated that there may be a cohort effect, such that older people simply experience less back pain than younger people do. Selective mortality and poorer recall also may explain the fall in prevalence rates among people over 60 years of age.⁷ The overall prevalence rates observed in studies^7,33 that included younger subjects were lower than those of studies that examined only subjects in their middle years.

A major methodological challenge in determining the prevalence of LBP in the general population is that there is no standardized tool for diagnosis. Radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging have aided with diagnosis, but they do not always indicate the cause. Thus, we believe there is a need to rely on other indexes of disease such as patient reports of LBP.³⁵ Reports of pain, whether by phone or by interview, can lead to inaccurate results. Biering-Sorensen and Hilden⁴⁰ reported that subjects responding to a mailed questionnaire consistently answered questions of ever having LBP 84% of the time on repeated occasions. Walsh and Coggon⁴¹ also examined the repeatability of a self-administered questionnaire and found agreement of 89% among reports of LBP. The associated error is likely due to recall bias. Carey et al²¹ suggested that false reporting was minimal (3%). Thus, until a standardized diagnostic tool is developed, substantial measurement error in prevalence rates is likely and rates will vary among studies using different durations of pain.

Other methodological challenges include using survey questions that have been shown to have sound measurement properties. Many authors of the studies we reviewed did not provide reliability and validity data for the questions used. Leboeuf-Yde et al³² tested the LBP questions in their study and provided references of reliability and validity. Cassidy et al²⁶ used a questionnaire with what we consider acceptable reliability and validity. Choosing the method of questionnaire administration also will influence outcome.⁴⁰ Telephone interviews and self-administered questionnaires are more feasible than personal interviews, but they may not be the most accurate.¹⁶ Finally, obtaining high response rates in population surveys can be a challenge. We contend that it is imperative that comparisons of respondents and nonrespondents be provided so that the generalizability of the study sample can be determined.

	Conclusion

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References

 
Future research on the community prevalence of LBP is needed before an accurate assessment of the societal impact of LBP on society with respect to disability and cost can be determined. Improved methodological quality and homogeneity among researchers are needed in all areas identified above. Generalizations to the community can be made with confidence from the 3 studies that we deemed to be methodologically superior. The point prevalence rate was estimated to be 13.7% in Glostrup, Denmark²²; 28.7% in Saskatchewan, Canada²⁶; and 19% in Bradford, United Kingdom.²⁹ The prevalence of LBP in North America was estimated by 3 studies reviewed.^7,26,33 The mean point prevalence rate estimated by Deyo and Tsui-Wu⁷ and Lee et al³³ was 5.6%. This estimate is considerably lower than the estimate by Cassidy et al²⁶ (28.7%), likely because of the definition of duration of LBP used in each study. Cassidy et al²⁶ investigated LBP on the day of the survey, whereas Deyo and Tsui-Wu⁷ and Lee et al³³ examined the seriousness of LBP and LBP of greater than 2 weeks' duration, respectively. Using the estimate of 5.6%, the population of North American adults is roughly 178 million.^42,43 Thus, roughly 10 million people are experiencing LBP on any given day. Many of these individuals will need medical care. Thus, it appears justified to contend that further research on the models of care and the effectiveness of treatments for LBP is needed and that more accurate prevalence estimates would aid in that research.

	Appendix

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References

 

View larger version (58K): [in this window] [in a new window] Appendix. Worksheet for Critical Assessment of an Article Determining Prevalence or Incidence

	Footnotes

 
Concept and research design, data collection, and project management were provided by Loney and Stratford; writing and data analysis, by Loney; institutional liaisons and manuscript review, by Stratford.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References

 

1. Frank JW, Kerr MS, Brooker A, et al. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain: I: What do we know about primary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention before disability begins. Spine.1996; 21:2908–2917.[Web of Science][Medline]
2. Harreby M, Neergaard K, Hellelsoe G, Kjer J. Are radiologic changes in the thoracic and lumbar spine of adolescents risk factors for low back pain in adults? A 25-year prospective cohort study of 640 school children. Spine.1995; 21:2298–2302.
3. Szpalski M, Nordin M, Skovron ML, et al. Health care utilization for low back pain in Belgium: influence of sociocultural factors and health beliefs. Spine.1995; 20:431-–42.[Web of Science][Medline]
4. Jekel J, Elmore J, Katz D. Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Preventative Medicine. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: WB Saunders Co;1996 :20–22.
5. Fletcher R, Fletcher S, Wagner E. Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials. 2nd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins;1988 :76–87.
6. Gordis L. Epidemiology. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: WB Saunders Co;1996 :32–34.
7. Deyo RA, Tsui-Wu Y. Descriptive epidemiology of low-back pain and its related medical care in the United States. Spine.1987; 12:264–268.[Web of Science][Medline]
8. Leboeuf-Yde C, Lauritsen JM. The prevalence of low back pain in the literature: a structured review of 26 Nordic studies from 1954 to 1993. Spine.1995; 20:2112–2118.[Web of Science][Medline]
9. Volinn E. The epidemiology of low back pain in the rest of the world: a review of surveys in low- and middle-income countries. Spine.1997; 22:1747–1754.[Web of Science][Medline]
10. Loney PL, Chambers LW, Bennett KJ, et al. Critical appraisal of the health care literature: how to critically appraise an article about prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Diseases in Canada. In press.
11. Frank JW, Brooker A, DeMaio SE, et al. Disability resulting from occupational low back pain, II: What do we know about secondary prevention? A review of the scientific evidence on prevention after disability begins. Spine.1996; 21:2918–2929.[Web of Science][Medline]
12. Bogduck N, Twomey LT. Clinical Anatomy of the Lumbar Spine. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone Inc;1987 :5.
13. Counsell C, Fraser H. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ.1995; 310:126.[Free Full Text]
14. Spoor P, Airey M, Bennett C, et al. Use of the capture-recapture technique to evaluate the completeness of systematic literature searches. BMJ.1996; 313:342–343.[Free Full Text]
15. Bishop YM, Fienberg SE, Holland PW. Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press;1975 :229–256.
16. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc;1995 :85–88.
17. Dixon RA, Munro JF, Silcocks PB. The Evidence-Based Medicine Workbook: Critical Appraisal for Clinical Problem Solving. Boston, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann;1997 :199–206.
18. Rockwood K, Stadnyk K. The prevalence of dementia in the elderly: a review. Can J Psychiatry.1994; 39:253–257.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. Kachigan S. Statistical Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Univariate and Multivariate Methods. New York, NY: Radius Press;1986 :158–159.
20. Marshall V. Factors affecting response and completion rates in some Canadian studies. Canadian Journal of Aging.1987; 6:217–227.
21. Carey TS, Garrett J, Jackman A, et al. Reporting of acute low back pain in a telephone interview: identification of potential biases. Spine.1995; 20:787–790.[Web of Science][Medline]
22. Biering-Sorensen F. Low back trouble in a general population of 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60-year-old men and women: study design, representative years, and basic results. Dan Med Bull.1982; 29:289–299.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. Brattberg G, Thorslund M, Wikman A. The prevalence of pain in a general population: the results of a postal survey in a county of Sweden. Pain.1989; 37:215–222.[Web of Science][Medline]
24. Carey TS, Evans AT, Hadler NM, et al. Care-seeking among individuals with chronic low back pain. Spine.1995; 20:312–317.[Web of Science][Medline]
25. Carey TS, Evans AT, Hadler NM, et al. Acute severe low back pain: a population-based study of prevalence and care-seeking. Spine.1996; 21:339–344.[Web of Science][Medline]
26. Cassidy JD, Carroll LJ, Cote P. The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey: the prevalence of lowback pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine.1998; 23:1860–1867.[Web of Science][Medline]
27. Harreby M, Kjer J, Hesselsoe G, Neergaard K. Epidemiological aspects and risk factors for low back pain in 38-year-old men and women: a 25-year prospective cohort study of 640 school children. Eur Spine J.1996; 5:312–318.[Medline]
28. Heliovaara M, Sievers K, Impivaara O, et al. Descriptive epidemiology and public health aspects of low back pain. Ann Med.1989; 21:327–333.[Web of Science][Medline]
29. Hillman M, Wright A, Rajaratnam G, et al. Prevalence of low back pain in the community: implication for service provision in Bradford, United Kingdom. J Epidemiol Community Health.1996; 50:347–352.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Jacobsson L, Lindgarde F, Manthorpe R. The commonest rheumatic complaints of over six weeks' duration in a twelve-month period in a defined Swedish population: prevalences and relationships. Scand J Rheumatol.1989; 18:353–360.[Web of Science][Medline]
31. Lau EM, Egger P, Coggon D, et al. Low back pain in Hong Kong: prevalence and characteristics compared with Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health.1995; 49:492–494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Leboeuf-Yde C, Klougart N, Lauritzen T. How common is low back pain in the Nordic population? Data from a recent study on a middle-aged general Danish population and four surveys previously conducted in the Nordic countries. Spine.1996; 21:1518–1526.[Web of Science][Medline]
33. Lee P, Helewa A, Smythe HA, et al. Epidemiology of musculoskeletal disorders (complaints) and related disability in Canada. J Rheumatol.1985; 12:1169–1173.[Web of Science][Medline]
34. Papageorgiou AC, Croft PR, Ferry S, et al. Estimating the prevalence of low back pain in the general population: evidence from the South Manchester Back Pain Survey. Spine.1995; 20:1889–1894.[Web of Science][Medline]
35. Skovron ML, Szpalski M, Nordin M, et al. Sociocultural factors and back pain: a population-based study in Belgian adults. Spine.1994; 19:129–137.[Medline]
36. Svensson H, Andersson GB. Low back pain in forty- to forty-seven-year-old men, I: frequency of occurrence and impact on medical services. Scand J Rehabil Med.1982; 14:47–53.[Web of Science][Medline]
37. Svensson H, Andersson GB, Johansson S, et al. A retrospective study of low-back pain in 38- to 64-year-old women: frequency of occurrence and impact on medical services. Spine.1988; 13:548–552.[Web of Science][Medline]
38. Walsh K, Cruddas M, Coggon D. Low back pain in eight areas of Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health.1992; 46:227–230.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
39. van Tulder MW, Koes BW, Bouter LM. Conservative treatment of acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of the most common interventions. Spine.1997; 22:2128–2156.[Web of Science][Medline]
40. Biering-Sorensen F, Hilden, J. Reproducibility of the history of low-back trouble. Spine.1984; 9:280–286.[Web of Science][Medline]
41. Walsh K, Coggon D. Reproducibility of histories of low-back pain obtained by self-administered questionnaire. Spine.1991; 16:1075–1077.[Web of Science][Medline]
42. Statistics Canada. Available at: http://www.statcan.ca.
43. US Bureau of the Census. Available at: http://www.census.gov.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. D Rundell, T. E Davenport, and T. Wagner Physical Therapist Management of Acute and Chronic Low Back Pain Using the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Physical Therapy, January 1, 2009; 89(1): 82 - 90. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Parsons, A Breen, N. Foster, L Letley, T Pincus, S Vogel, and M Underwood Prevalence and comparative troublesomeness by age of musculoskeletal pain in different body locations Fam. Pract., August 1, 2007; 24(4): 308 - 316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. R Troyer Differential Diagnosis of Endometriosis in a Young Adult Woman With Nonspecific Low Back Pain Physical Therapy, June 1, 2007; 87(6): 801 - 810. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Sperry Utilizing a Family-Sensitive Cognitive Behavioral Intervention With Chronic Illness: The Impact of Family Dynamics and Therapy on Medical Symptoms The Family Journal, January 1, 2007; 15(1): 56 - 61. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. E. Dionne, K. M. Dunn, and P. R. Croft Does back pain prevalence really decrease with increasing age? A systematic review Age Ageing, May 1, 2006; 35(3): 229 - 234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Mikhail, N. Korner-Bitensky, M. Rossignol, and J.-P. Dumas Physical Therapists' Use of Interventions With High Evidence of Effectiveness in the Management of a Hypothetical Typical Patient With Acute Low Back Pain Physical Therapy, November 1, 2005; 85(11): 1151 - 1167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. C. Tong, A. J. Haig, V. S. Nelson, K. S.-J. Yamakawa, G. Kandala, and K. Y. Shin Low Back Pain in Adult Female Caregivers of Children With Physical Disabilities Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, November 1, 2003; 157(11): 1128 - 1133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. C. Teitz, J. O'Kane, B. K. Lind, and J. A. Hannafin Back Pain in Intercollegiate Rowers Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2002; 30(5): 674 - 679. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Preyde Effectiveness of massage therapy for subacute low-back pain: a randomized controlled trial Can. Med. Assoc. J., June 1, 2000; 162(13): 1815 - 1820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Loney, P. L Articles by Stratford, P. W Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Loney, P. L Articles by Stratford, P. W Related Collections Injuries and Conditions: Low Back Social Bookmarking                      What's this?