Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem among adults of working age population, and its prevalence or incidence increases with increasing in age. The purpose of this review was to examine the real-world prevalence or incidence of LBP. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA guideline. Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, SportDiscuss and Scopus electronic databases were searched using specifically developed search strategies to identify studies using patients’ electronic medical records published in English up to February 2019. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a tool that consists of ten items addressing a risk of bias. The search yielded 756 published studies, of which 13 were deemed relevant and were included in this review. The included studies reported incidence or prevalence data from Canada, United States of America (USA), Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Israel, and Netherlands. All the included studies were assessed to be methodologically sound (low risk of bias). The prevalence and incidence of LBP ranged from 1.4 to 20.0% and 0.024–7.0%, respectively. Three studies reported that the Odds of LBP in male patient was higher than their female counterparts (odds ratio > 1; range 1.11–17.29). Nine studies identified the risk factors of LBP to be age, sex, and race. The remaining four studies also listed high intensity of physical activity, high spinal load, lifting, bending, and twisting as the risk factors for LBP. The results of this study highlighted there is a substantial difference within studies that estimated the prevalence and incidence of LBP. This finding could inform healthcare policy makers to critically examine the data sources of prevalence and incidence studies; this in return might help for resource allocation to manage the condition. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017078598, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ .

Objectives Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability and work absenteeism globally, and it poses significant clinical and economic burden to individuals, health systems and the society. This study aimed to synthesise the clinical and economic burden of LBP in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, AMED, Embase and Scopus databases were systematically searched for studies that examined the clinical and economic burden of LBP in LMICs, published from inception to 10 December 2021. Only studies with clearly stated methodologies and published in English were eligible for review. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Of these, three of them were clinical burden studies. The mean Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) score of the included studies was 4, with an average from 3 to 6. The included studies were conducted in Argentina, Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Republic of Serbia. The rates of hospitalisation due to LBP ranged between 13.4% and 18.7%. Due to variation of methodological approaches, the reported cost estimates were inconsistent across the studies. A total cost of US$2.2 billion per population and US$1226.25 per patient were reported annually due to LBP. Conclusion This systematic literature review suggests that LBP is associated with significantly high rates of hospitalisation and costs. As LBP is an important threat to the population, health professionals and policymakers are to put in place appropriate programmes to reduce the clinical and economic burden associated with LBP and improve the health outcomes of individuals with this condition in LMICs. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020196335.

Background: Telerehabilitation can facilitate multidisciplinary management for people with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP). It provides health care access to individuals who are physically and economically disadvantaged. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation compared with a clinic-based intervention for people with NCLBP in Nigeria. Methods: A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial from a health care perspective was conducted. Patients with NCLBP were assigned to either telerehabilitation-based McKenzie therapy (TBMT) or clinic-based McKenzie therapy (CBMT). Interventions were carried out 3 times weekly for a period of 8 weeks. Patients’ level of disability was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at baseline, week 4, and week 8. To estimate the health-related quality of life of the patients, the ODI was mapped to the short-form six dimensions instrument to generate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health care resource use and costs were assessed based on the McKenzie extension protocol in Nigeria in 2019. Descriptive and inferential data analyses were also performed to assess the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. Bootstrapping was conducted to generate the point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: A total of 47 patients (TBMT, n=21 and CBMT, n=26), with a mean age of 47 (SD 11.6) years for telerehabilitation and 50 (SD 10.7) years for the clinic-based intervention, participated in this study. The mean cost estimates of TBMT and CBMT interventions per person were 22,200 naira (US $61.7) and 38,200 naira (US $106), respectively. QALY gained was 0.085 for TBMT and 0.084 for CBMT. The TBMT arm was associated with an additional 0.001 QALY (95% CI 0.001 to 0.002) per participant compared with the CBMT arm. Thus, the ICER showed that the TBMT arm was less costly and more effective than the CBMT arm. Conclusions: The findings of the study suggested that telerehabilitation for people with NCLBP was cost saving. Given the small number of participants in this study, further examination of effects and costs of the interventions is needed within a larger sample size. In addition, future studies are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention in the long term from the patient and societal perspective.

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) may be more prevalent among most ethnic groups in the low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), still these countries are under-represented in epidemiological data on SLE. The aim of this study was to review the prevalence and incidence of SLE in LMICs and use meta-analytic techniques. The MEDLINE, CINHAL, Web of Science, Scopus and Global Index Medicus databases were searched for relevant studies published up to July of 2022. Papers selected for full-text review were included in the systematic review if they provided the prevalence or incidence of SLE in LMICs and published in English language. The reference lists of included articles were also searched for additional studies. Two individuals independently performed abstract and full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment of the papers. The prevalence and incidence of SLE were pooled through random effects model. Pooled estimates were expressed with 95% confidence. Out of 2340 papers, 23 studies were included in the review. The mean age at diagnosis ranged from 25.5 to 45.8 years. Three studies were conducted in Argentina and Brazil, two studies in China and one study in Cuba, Colombia, Democratic Republic Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. The SLE prevalence and incidence varied from 3.2 to 159 per 100,000 and 0.3–8.7 per 100,000 persons, respectively. In a random effects meta-analysis (n = 10), the pooled prevalence of SLE was 103 (95% confidence interval [CI] – 17 to 224) per 100,000. Meta‐analysis of data from 6 incidence studies revealed an incidence of 5 cases per year (95% CI 2–8) per 100,000. According to WHO regions, the pooled prevalence of American and Western Pacific regions was 300 (95% CI – 200 to 900) and 36 (95% CI 35–37) per 100,000, respectively. The pooled incidence of the American region was 10 (95%, 0–14) per 100,000 inhabitants. Systemic lupus erythematosus is a common disease with considerable variation in prevalence and incidence among the general population in LMICs. Accurate estimates of prevalence and incidence of SLE are required to put in place appropriate programmes to reduce its burden in LMICs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD: 42020197495, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a considerable concern, impacting individual health and socio‐economic factors. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of CTS prevalence would offer valuable insights for healthcare planning, improving outcomes and reducing the burden on affected individuals.Methods: In line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a meta‐analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence of CTS. Medline, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies published from 1 January 2012 to 10 October 2024. The pooled prevalence rates were determined using a random effects model.Results: The search yielded 548 initial findings, 103 duplicate records were eliminated, and only 31 of these papers were deemed relevant for inclusion in this review. The prevalence estimates were sourced from 15 different countries, including the United States (n = 8), Saudi Arabia (n = 5), Ethiopia (n = 3), Turkey (n = 2), Iran (n = 2) and Brazil (n = 2), among others. Each of the following countries contributed one study: China, France, Germany, India, Kuwait, the United Kingdom, Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden. In total, the included studies analysed 5,311,785 individuals, revealing a prevalence of CTS ranging from 0.003 to 0.743. The random‐effects meta‐analysis yielded an overall prevalence estimate of 0.144, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.067–0.282, based on 30 studies.Conclusion: The prevalence estimates for CTS are notably high, highlighting the need for effective surgical management strategies. Developing and implementing these interventions is crucial to enhancing health outcomes for individuals affected by CTS.

Background: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are widespread in many countries and their huge burden on the society has necessitated innovative approaches such as digital health interventions. However, no study has evaluated the findings of cost-effectiveness of these interventions. Objective: This study aims to synthesize the cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with MSDs. Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, AMED, CIHAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Centre for Review and Dissemination were searched for cost-effectiveness of digital health published between inception and June 2022 following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. References of all retrieved articles were checked for relevant studies. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. Results were presented using a narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis. Results: A total of 10 studies from 6 countries met the inclusion criteria. Using the QHES instrument, we found that the mean score of the overall quality of the included studies was 82.5. Included studies were on nonspecific chronic low back pain (n=4), chronic pain (n=2), knee and hip osteoarthritis (n=3), and fibromyalgia (n=1). The economic perspectives adopted in the included studies were societal (n=4), societal and health care (n=3), and health care (n=3). Of the 10 included studies, 5 (50%) used quality-adjusted life-years as the outcome measures. Except 1 study, all the included studies reported that digital health interventions were cost-effective compared with the control group. In a random effects meta-analysis (n=2), the pooled disability and quality-adjusted life-years were –0.176 (95% CI –0.317 to –0.035; P=.01) and 3.855 (95% CI 2.023 to 5.687; P<.001), respectively. The meta-analysis (n=2) for the costs was in favor of the digital health intervention compared with control: US $417.52 (95% CI –522.01 to –313.03). Conclusions: Studies indicate that digital health interventions are cost-effective for people with MSDs. Our findings suggest that digital health intervention could help improve access to treatment for patients with MSDs and as a result improve their health outcomes. Clinicians and policy makers should consider the use of these interventions for patients with MSDs. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021253221; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=253221