Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Paulo Roberto Carvalho do Nascimento
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
por
Título da fonte: Cadernos de Saúde Pública
Texto Completo: https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949
Resumo: The article describes the methodological quality of published studies on prevalence of low back pain in Brazil. Eighteen studies were considered eligible after searches in the following electronic databases: LILACS, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and SciELO. A high source of bias was observed in the criteria for external validity related to sampling, in addition to non-response bias. Considering the criteria for internal validity, the main sources of bias were the lack of an acceptable definition of low back pain and the use of instruments that lacked proven reliability and validity. No representative study was found that provides a generalizable prevalence of low back pain in Brazil. The published studies included in this review showed a high risk of bias that affects the prevalence data. Future studies with appropriate methodological design are necessary to verify the real impact of low back pain in Brazil and allow comparisons.
id FIOCRUZ-5_226cda36c7d2430b1115344997b233d9
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.teste-cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br:article/5949
network_acronym_str FIOCRUZ-5
network_name_str Cadernos de Saúde Pública
repository_id_str
spelling Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic reviewPrevalência da dor lombar no Brasil: uma revisão sistemáticaLow Back PainBias (Epidemiology)ReviewDor LombarViés (Epidemiologia)RevisãoThe article describes the methodological quality of published studies on prevalence of low back pain in Brazil. Eighteen studies were considered eligible after searches in the following electronic databases: LILACS, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and SciELO. A high source of bias was observed in the criteria for external validity related to sampling, in addition to non-response bias. Considering the criteria for internal validity, the main sources of bias were the lack of an acceptable definition of low back pain and the use of instruments that lacked proven reliability and validity. No representative study was found that provides a generalizable prevalence of low back pain in Brazil. The published studies included in this review showed a high risk of bias that affects the prevalence data. Future studies with appropriate methodological design are necessary to verify the real impact of low back pain in Brazil and allow comparisons.El artículo describe la calidad metodológica de los estudios publicados sobre la prevalencia de dolor lumbar realizados en Brasil. Dieciocho estudios se consideraron elegibles, después de búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos electrónicas: LILACS, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus y SciELO. Se encontró una alta fuente de sesgo en los criterios de validez externos, relacionados con la toma de muestras, y el sesgo de no respuesta. Teniendo en cuenta los criterios de validez interna, la principal fuente de sesgo se relaciona con la falta de una definición de caso aceptable, y el uso de instrumentos que no tenían la fiabilidad y validez de constructo. No se encontraron estudios representativos que ofrecieran una prevalencia generalizable de dolor lumbar en Brasil. Los estudios publicados, incluidos en esta revisión, tenían un alto riesgo de sesgo que afecta a los datos de prevalencia. Son necesarios futuros estudios con diseño metodológico apropiado, con el fin de presentar el impacto real del dolor lumbar en Brasil para permitir comparaciones.O artigo descreve a qualidade metodológica dos estudos publicados sobre prevalência de dor lombar realizados no Brasil. Dezoito estudos foram considerados elegíveis após pesquisas nas seguintes bases de dados: LILACS, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus e SciELO. Alto risco de viés foi encontrado nos critérios de validade externa relacionados com a amostragem, e viés de não-resposta. Considerando os critérios de validade interna, a principal fonte de viés estava relacionada com a falta de uma definição de caso aceitável, bem como a utilização de instrumentos que não apresentavam construto de confiabilidade e a validade provados. Nenhum estudo representativo com valores de prevalência da dor lombar no Brasil foi encontrado. Os trabalhos publicados incluídos nesta revisão apresentaram um alto risco de viés que afetam os dados de prevalência. Futuros estudos com desenho metodológico adequado são necessários, a fim de apresentar o real impacto da dor lombar no Brasil e permitir comparações.Reports in Public HealthCadernos de Saúde Pública2015-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmltext/htmlapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949Reports in Public Health; Vol. 31 No. 6 (2015): JuneCadernos de Saúde Pública; v. 31 n. 6 (2015): Junho1678-44640102-311Xreponame:Cadernos de Saúde Públicainstname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZengporhttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12480https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12481https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12482https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12483Paulo Roberto Carvalho do NascimentoLeonardo Oliveira Pena Costainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-03-06T15:29:01Zoai:ojs.teste-cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br:article/5949Revistahttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csphttps://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/oaicadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br||cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br1678-44640102-311Xopendoar:2024-03-06T13:06:48.103310Cadernos de Saúde Pública - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)true
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
Prevalência da dor lombar no Brasil: uma revisão sistemática
title Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
spellingShingle Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
Paulo Roberto Carvalho do Nascimento
Low Back Pain
Bias (Epidemiology)
Review
Dor Lombar
Viés (Epidemiologia)
Revisão
title_short Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
title_full Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
title_fullStr Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
title_sort Low back pain prevalence in Brazil: a systematic review
author Paulo Roberto Carvalho do Nascimento
author_facet Paulo Roberto Carvalho do Nascimento
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
author_role author
author2 Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Paulo Roberto Carvalho do Nascimento
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Low Back Pain
Bias (Epidemiology)
Review
Dor Lombar
Viés (Epidemiologia)
Revisão
topic Low Back Pain
Bias (Epidemiology)
Review
Dor Lombar
Viés (Epidemiologia)
Revisão
description The article describes the methodological quality of published studies on prevalence of low back pain in Brazil. Eighteen studies were considered eligible after searches in the following electronic databases: LILACS, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and SciELO. A high source of bias was observed in the criteria for external validity related to sampling, in addition to non-response bias. Considering the criteria for internal validity, the main sources of bias were the lack of an acceptable definition of low back pain and the use of instruments that lacked proven reliability and validity. No representative study was found that provides a generalizable prevalence of low back pain in Brazil. The published studies included in this review showed a high risk of bias that affects the prevalence data. Future studies with appropriate methodological design are necessary to verify the real impact of low back pain in Brazil and allow comparisons.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949
url https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
por
language eng
por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12480
https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12481
https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12482
https://cadernos.ensp.fiocruz.br/ojs/index.php/csp/article/view/5949/12483
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
text/html
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Reports in Public Health
Cadernos de Saúde Pública
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Reports in Public Health
Cadernos de Saúde Pública
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Reports in Public Health; Vol. 31 No. 6 (2015): June
Cadernos de Saúde Pública; v. 31 n. 6 (2015): Junho
1678-4464
0102-311X
reponame:Cadernos de Saúde Pública
instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
instacron:FIOCRUZ
instname_str Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
instacron_str FIOCRUZ
institution FIOCRUZ
reponame_str Cadernos de Saúde Pública
collection Cadernos de Saúde Pública
repository.name.fl_str_mv Cadernos de Saúde Pública - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br||cadernos@ensp.fiocruz.br
_version_ 1798943380290404353

Registros relacionados