OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain.
METHODS: We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries.
RESULTS: Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group.
CONCLUSION: Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
METHODS: Healthy participants aged ≥ 60 years with no neurological conditions were recruited from rural and urban locations in Malaysia. HGS and KPS were measured using hand grip and key pinch dynamometers. Basic demographic data, anthropometric measures, modified Barthel Index scores and results of the Functional Reach Test (FRT), Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT) were recorded.
RESULTS: 362 subjects aged 60-93 years were recruited. The men were significantly stronger than the women in both HGS and KPS (p < 0.001). The hand strength of the study cohort was lower than that of elderly Western populations. Significant correlations were observed between hand strength, and residential area (p < 0.001), FRT (r = 0.236, p = 0.028), TUG (r = -0.227, p = 0.009) and JTHFT (r = -0.927, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This study established reference ranges for the HGS and KPS of rural and urban elderly Malaysian subpopulations. These will aid the use of hand strength as a screening tool for frailty among elderly persons in Malaysia. Future studies are required to determine the modifiable factors for poor hand strength.