Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jan 21;196(2):E29-E46.
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.230542.

The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Sarah B Wallwork et al. CMAJ. .

Abstract

Background: Understanding the clinical course of low back pain is essential to informing treatment recommendations and patient stratification. Our aim was to update our previous systematic review and meta-analysis to gain a better understanding of the clinical course of acute, subacute and persistent low back pain.

Methods: To update our 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched the Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases from 2011 until January 2023, using our previous search strategy. We included prospective inception cohort studies if they reported on participants with acute (< 6 wk), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) nonspecific low back pain at study entry. Primary outcome measures included pain and disability (0-100 scale). We assessed risk of bias of included studies using a modified tool and assessed the level of confidence in pooled estimates using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. We used a mixed model design to calculate pooled estimates (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) of pain and disability at 0, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. We treated time in 2 ways: time since study entry (inception time uncorrected) and time since pain onset (inception time corrected). We transformed the latter by adding the mean inception time to the time of study entry.

Results: We included 95 studies, with 60 separate cohorts in the systematic review (n = 17 974) and 47 cohorts (n = 9224) in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias of included studies was variable, with poor study attrition and follow-up, and most studies did not select participants as consecutive cases. For the acute pain cohort, the estimated mean pain score with inception time uncorrected was 56 (95% CI 49-62) at baseline, 26 (95% CI 21-31) at 6 weeks, 22 (95% CI 18-26) at 26 weeks and 21 (95% CI 17-25) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the subacute pain cohort, the mean pain score was 63 (95% CI 55-71) at baseline, 29 (95% CI 22-37) at 6 weeks, 29 (95% CI 22-36) at 26 weeks and 31 (95% 23-39) at 52 weeks (moderate-certainty evidence). For the persistent pain cohort, the mean pain score was 56 (95% CI 37-74) at baseline, 48 (95% CI 32-64) at 6 weeks, 43 (95% CI 29-57) at 26 weeks and 40 (95% CI 27-54) at 52 weeks (very low-certainty evidence). The clinical course of disability was slightly more favourable than the clinical course of pain.

Interpretation: Participants with acute and subacute low back pain had substantial improvements in levels of pain and disability within the first 6 weeks ( moderate-certainty evidence); however, participants with persistent low back pain had high levels of pain and disability with minimal improvements over time (very low-certainty evidence). Identifying and escalating care in individuals with subacute low back pain who are recovering slowly could be a focus of intervention to reduce the likelihood of transition into persistent low back pain.

Protocol registration: PROSPERO - CRD42020207442.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: Sarah Wallwork has received speaker fees from the Neuro Orthopaedic Institute and Exercise and Sport Science Australia. Felicity Braithwaite has received speaker fees from the Neuro Orthopaedic Institute, San Diego Pain Summit, Medicine Education Science and Health (MESH) . Mary O’Keeffe reports consulting fees from the European Pain Federation EFIC, honoraria from the Physio Network and travel support from INTERACT-EUROPE, PANACEA and Happy. Mervyn Travers has received speaker fees from Aalborg University, Australian Physiotherapy Association, Australian Podiatry Association, Life Ready Physiotherapy, Physio-Formation, Smart Education, O2 Academy, Healthia, Queensland Health, The University of Western Australia, Hemophilia Association Australia, Icelandic Physiotherapy Association and Rural Health West. Belinda Lange is a nonexecutive director of the Australian Physiotherapy Council and the Australasian Institute of Digital Health. G. Lorimer Moseley has received support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund, Reality Health, Connect Health UK, Institutes of Health California, American International Assurance Australia, Workers’ Compensation Boards and professional sporting organisations (International Olympic Committee, English Premier League, La Liga, Australian Football League Clubs, National Basketball League, Athletics Australia, Cricket Australia). Professional and scientific bodies have reimbursed him for travel costs related to presentations of research on pain. He has received speaker fees for lectures on pain and rehabilitation from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Noigroup Australia and MasterSessions. He receives royalties from Noigroup Publications, Orthopedic Physical Therapy Products and Dancing Giraffe Press. He sits on boards with Painaustralia and National Pain Solutions Research Alliance, and is chief executive officer with Pain Revolution. No other competing interests were declared.

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA) flow diagram outlining selection of studies for inclusion. Note: LBP = low back pain.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Trajectory of pain among patients with acute (< 6 wk) (A, D), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) (B, E) or persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) (C, F) low back pain. The top row of graphs shows pain trajectory for inception time corrected, where time is captured as the time since the onset of low back pain. The bottom row of graphs shows pain trajectory for inception time uncorrected, where time reflects the time since study entry. Green boxes represent the observed mean pain score for each study at each time point. Shaded area represents 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Trajectory of disability in patients with acute (< 6 wk) (A, D), subacute (6 to less than 12 wk) (B, E) and persistent (12 to less than 52 wk) (C, F) low back pain. The top row of graphs shows disability trajectory for inception time corrected, where time is captured as the time since the onset of low back pain. The bottom row of graphs shows disability trajectory for inception time uncorrected, where time reflects the time since study entry. Green boxes represent the observed mean pain score for each study at each time point. Shaded area represents 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

References

    1. Wu A, March L, Zheng X, et al. . Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med 2020;8:299. - PMC - PubMed
    1. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020;396:1204–22. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, et al. . A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2028–37. - PubMed
    1. Dieleman JL, Cao J, Chapin A, et al. . US health care spending by payer and health condition, 1996–2016. JAMA 2020;323:863–84. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bevan S. Economic impact of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) on work in Europe. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2015;29:356–73. - PubMed

Publication types