Prevalence of low back pain in different educational levels: a systematic review

Abstract Introduction: Non-specific low back pain (LBP) can be understood through the interaction of biopsychosocial factors such as education. Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether education can be considered an important risk and prognostic factor for the occurrence of LBP. Objective: To investigate the association between education and LBP. Methods: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, AMED and PsyINFO. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the review. The Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) was used to assess risk of bias. Methodological quality scores ranged from 7 to 10 on a scale of 0-10. There was a 23% (95% CI, 13-37) prevalence of LBP (10,582 out of a total of 99,457 cases) in the general sample at the time of assessment. The meta-analysis of studies on the prevalence of LBP in people with low, medium or high educational level found the following results, respectively: 24% (95% CI, 12-43), 27% (95% CI, 9-56), and 18% (95% CI, 5-50). The meta-regression identified heterogeneity among the studies included in the review. This can be explained by educational differences (p

【引言】非特异性下腰痛（non-specific low back pain, LBP）的发生发展可通过教育等生物心理社会因素的交互作用得以阐释。遗憾的是，目前仍不明确教育是否可被视为LBP发生的重要风险因素与预后因素。
研究目的：探讨教育程度与LBP之间的关联。
研究方法：检索以下数据库：MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane、AMED及PsyINFO。
研究结果：本综述共纳入13项研究。采用患病率关键评价工具（Prevalence Critical Appraisal Instrument, PCAI）评估纳入研究的偏倚风险，方法学质量评分采用0~10分制，得分区间为7~10分。评估阶段，总体样本的LBP患病率为23%（95%置信区间：13%~37%），99457例总样本中共检出10582例LBP患者。针对低、中、高教育水平人群LBP患病率的荟萃分析结果分别为：24%（95%置信区间：12%~43%）、27%（95%置信区间：9%~56%）及18%（95%置信区间：5%~50%）。Meta回归分析显示本综述纳入的研究存在异质性，该异质性可由教育程度差异解释（p