Background
Methods
Search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Review process
Quality assessment
Results
Quality assessment
Author and year | Study design and setting | Age of cohort at baseline | Purpose of study | Number of follow-ups | Time between follow-ups | Sample size | Methods for data collection | Outcome measures of LBP | Identified terminology for patterns of LBP |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aartun, 2014 | School-based prospective cohort study | 11–13 years | Course of LBP | 1 | 2 years | Baseline: 1291 Follow-up: 1064 (82%) | Electronic questionnaire | 1) Point prevalence 2) 1-week prevalence 3) Lifetime prevalence | 1) Never LBP 2) Development of LBP 3) Changes in frequency of LBP |
Burton, 1996 | School-based prospective cohort study | 11 years | Natural history of LBP | 4 | 1 year | Baseline: 216 Follow-up (T5): 147 (68%) | Questionnaire; interviews first 2 years, then self-administered | 1) Lifetime prevalence | 1) Single, discrete spell of LBP 2) Recurrent LBP |
Coenen, 2017 | Follow-up in a birth cohort | 17 years | Trajectories of LBP | 2 | 3 and 2 years | Baseline: 1050 Follow-up (T2): 1033 (98%) (not same responders T1–3) | Self-administered questionnaire | 1) 1 month prevalence | 1) Consistenly low probability of LBP 2) Increase in prevalence of LBP 3) Decrease in the prevalence of LBP 4) Consistently high prevalence of LBP |
Grimmer, 2006 | School-based prospective cohort study | 13 years | Tracking of LBP | 4 | Yearly samples | Baseline: 434 Follow-up (T5): 174 (40%) | Self-administered questionnaire | 1) 1-week prevalence | 1) Recent LBP 2) Variability of LBP 1) Repeated reporting 2) Regular LBP 3) Consistency of occurrence of LBP |
Kjaer, 2011 | School-based prospective cohort study | 9 years | Tracking of LBP | 3 | 4 years | Baseline: 479 Follow-up: 443 (92%) (not same responders T1–4) | Questionnaire by interviews | 1) Point prevalence 2) 1-week prevalence 3) 1 month prevalence | 1) No LBP 2) Still LBP 3) Changes in reports of LBP |
Mikkelsson, 1997 | School-based prospective cohort study | 9 years | Persistence of LBP | 1 | 1 year | Baseline: 1756 Follow-up:1628 (92%) | Self-administered questionnaire | 1) 3 months prevalence | 1) Seldom or never LBP 2) Persistence of LBP |
Sjolie, 2004 | School-based prospective cohort study | 14 years | Persistence and change in LBP | 1 | 3 years | Baseline: 88Follow-up: 85 (97%) | Self-administered questionnaire | 1) 1-year prevalence | 1) No LBP 2) Still LBP 3) Persistent, but changeable LBP |
Szpalski, 2002 | School-based prospective cohort study | 9 years | Prediction of LBP | 1 | 2 years | Baseline: 287 Follow-up: 287 (100%) | Self-administered questionnaire | 1) Lifetime prevalence | 1) No LBP 2) Identical LBP 3) Ongoing LBP |
Author | Aartun | Burton | Coenen | Grimmer | Kjaer | Mikkelsson | Sjolie | Szpalski |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | Y | Y | CD | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N |
5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N |
6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N |
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N |
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
Risk of bias
AARTUN | Burton | Coenen | Grimmer | Kjaer | Mikkelsson | Sjolie | Szpalski | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall rating | Poor | Poor | Good | Fair | Fair | Fair | Poor | Poor |
Risk of bias | Reporting bias Misclassification bias Differential drop outs Analytical bias Selective outcome reporting | Selection bias Reporting bias Misclassification bias Loss to follow-up | Selection bias | Misclassification bias Loss to follow-up Analytical bias | Selection bias Reporting bias Misclassification bias | Reporting bias Misclassification bias | Reporting bias Misclassification bias Analytical bias | Selection bias Reporting bias Misclassification bias Analytical bias Selective outcome reporting |
Synthesis of results
Age range of participants | No or low probability of LBP | Repeated reporting of LBP | Fluctuation of LBP | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Coenen | 17–22 | 53% | 10% | 37% |
Grimmer | 13–17 | – | < 1% | 16% |
Kjaer | 9–15 | 49% | < 1% | 32% |
Mikkelsson | 9–11 | – | 1,3% | – |