ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Sociodemographic differences in low back pain: which subgroups of workers are most vulnerable?
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Factors Associated With Low Back Pain in Bangladesh: A Cross-Sectional Study Conducted in 2023.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Current Status, Trends, and Forecast Analysis of LBP Disease Burden Attributable to Occupational Ergonomic Factors in China.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Depression and Insomnia Mediate the Link Between Problematic Internet Use and Neuropathic Low Back Pain: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow back pain (LBP) is a common health problem in workers that contributes to work disability and reduces quality of life. However, studies examining vulnerable groups in relation to sociodemographic differences in LBP remain scarce. Therefore, the current study investigates which sociodemographic groups of workers are most affected by LBP.
methodsData from the 2018 BIBB/BAuA employment survey were used (N = 16252). Age, education, occupational group, income, working hours, atypical working time, relationship status, and having children were used as sociodemographic predictors. Gender-stratified logistic regression analyses and intersectional classification tree analyses were conducted.
resultsA higher prevalence of LBP was observed for women compared to men. Significant differences in LBP emerged for age, working hours, atypical working time, occupational group and education, with some gender differences in the importance of predictors: Age was a significant predictor mostly in men as compared to women, atypical working hours had a slightly greater effect in women, whereas differences in LBP according to the occupational group were more pronounced for men. Vulnerable groups were found to be women who work in occupations other than professionals or managers, work atypical hours and have an intermediate or low educational level as well as men who work as skilled agricultural workers, craft workers, machine operators, or elementary occupations and are between 35 and 64 years old.
conclusionsThus, workers with certain occupations and lower levels of education, middle-aged men and women with unfavourable working time characteristics are most affected by low back pain. These groups should be focused on to potentially increase healthy working life and prevent work disability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.