ライフサイエンスコーパス: low back

1 ptive field was in the intact muscles of the low back.

2 f acupuncture for conditions such as chronic low back and knee pain.

3 Chronic pain, including chronic low back and leg pain are prominent causes of disability

4 ered were: classic SMS (n = 5, involving the low back and lower extremities), variant SMS (n = 2, lim

5 US behind ischemic heart disease (2447) and low back and neck pain (1565).

6 utcome measures included lifetime history of low back and neck pain (using a range of increasingly st

7 llion (UI, $82.7 billion-$92.9 billion), and low back and neck pain accounted for the third-highest a

8 ing on diabetes, ischemic heart disease, and low back and neck pain accounting for the highest amount

9 Spending on low back and neck pain and on diabetes increased the mos

10 Low back and neck pain are common and result in signific

11 Low back and neck pain are critical public health proble

12 current US national prevalence estimates of low back and neck pain exist and few studies have invest

13 In 2016, among the 154 conditions, low back and neck pain had the highest amount of health

14 aemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, low back and neck pain, and depressive disorders; the la

15 Although spending on low back and neck pain, other musculoskeletal disorders,

16 s have investigated the associations between low back and neck pain, psychological factors, and healt

17 disease, and the leading cause of DALYs was low back and neck pain.

18 of a multidimensional approach to examining low back and neck problems and suggests the need for fur

19 Generally, adults with low back and/or neck pain reported more comorbid conditi

20 se capacity (-2.0 +/- 2.1 ml/kg per minute), low-back and hamstring flexibility (-4.7 +/- 1.6 cm), an

21 approximately 15 years in the evaluation of low-back and lower extremity pain.

22 d between lift availability and work-related low-back and shoulder pain.

23 osed musculoskeletal pain in the knee, neck, low back, and/or shoulder.

24 internal loads and perhaps increased risk of low back disorders.

25 the near infrared (NIR) region are ideal for low back-ground in vivo imaging.

26 The 250 patients had low back, hip, or knee pain for 3 months or longer and a

27 Implementing a selective approach to low back imaging, as suggested by the American College o

28 nt sources of morbidity, especially for the "low back" lumbar region.

29 However, low back muscle activity was higher for RALS.

30 rmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outp

31 rmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults in the outp

32 s treating patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with opioids, includi

33 ians treat patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with oral NSAIDs to r

34 ians treat patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with specific acupres

35 ians treat patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries with topical nonstero

36 ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.

37 tment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.

38 opulation is adults with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries.

39 Management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

40 The survey collected data on low-back, neck, and shoulder pain, lift availability, li

41 past year was categorized as no pain in the low back or leg, LBP only, and LBP with leg pain.

42 For acute low back pain (<4 weeks' duration), the only nonpharmaco

43 The PP group had a significant reduction of low back pain (66.2% vs 50.0%; P = 0.04) and analgesic c

44 am (SMP) on primary care patients with acute low back pain (ALBP) from low income, inner city neighbo

45 Main outcome measures were Aberdeen Low Back Pain (ALBP) score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score

46 2.4 +/- 13 years old; 13F, 12M) with chronic low back pain (cLBP) and 27 healthy control subjects (48

47 stigated thalamocortical networks in chronic low back pain (cLBP) given its non-specific etiology and

48 Patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (A

49 neural activity in individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP) remains scarce and results are inco

50 ga is effective for mild to moderate chronic low back pain (cLBP), but its comparative effectiveness

51 For many individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is no identifiable cause.

52 the afternoon in 47 subjects without current low back pain (IVDs = 230; age range, 20-71 years) after

53 eloped to screen for risk factors for future low back pain (LBP) -related disability and work loss re

54 ebral disc (IVD) degeneration and consequent low back pain (LBP) are common and costly pathological p

55 d cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of

56 ance differs between people with and without low back pain (LBP) during a low-load lifting task.

57 Low back pain (LBP) in children and adolescents is a com

58 Low back pain (LBP) is a common debilitating condition w

59 Low back pain (LBP) is a widespread debilitating disorde

60 Low back pain (LBP) is common in children but the progno

61 Low back pain (LBP) is common in primary care.

62 Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for more than 2.5 mil

63 Low back pain (LBP) is the most frequently reported musc

64 ociated with a specific phenotype of chronic low back pain (LBP).

65 our of the paraspinal muscles in people with low back pain (LBP); but so far, HDEMG has not been used

66 nal treatments for participants with chronic low back pain (Mint study) were conducted in 16 multidis

67 s that could be confused for musculoskeletal low back pain (nepholithiasis, urinary tract infection,

68 asone recipients demonstrated improvement in low back pain (P = .04, Fisher exact test), whereas 55%

69 betamethasone recipients had improvement in low back pain (P = .26), whereas 49% of triamcinolone re

70 betamethasone recipients had improvement in low back pain (P = .38), whereas 52% of triamcinolone re

71 lation, massage, and acupuncture for chronic low back pain (SOE, low to moderate).

72 acupuncture is modestly effective for acute low back pain (SOE, low).

73 iagnostic tests in patients with nonspecific low back pain (strong recommendation, moderate-quality e

74 the preceding therapies for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain) that reported p

75 manipulation, and yoga for acute or chronic low back pain (with or without leg pain).

76 Low back pain affects a minority of individuals over 65

77 Non-specific low back pain affects people of all ages and is a leadin

78 verity were divided according to symptoms of low back pain alone and symptoms of low back pain with o

79 n of potential therapeutics for treatment of low back pain and disc degeneration.

80 s a major pathological process implicated in low back pain and is a prerequisite to disk herniation.

81 lly significant difference in improvement in low back pain and lower extremity pain between groups.

82 with betamethasone and triamcinolone reduced low back pain and lower extremity pain, although there w

83 The strongest associations were between low back pain and MRI change (odds ratio [OR] 3.6, 95% c

84 al conditions, such as fibromyalgia, chronic low back pain and myofascial pain.

85 anxiety, musculoskeletal disorders including low back pain and neck pain, diabetes, and cirrhosis--in

86 A 20-year-old man presented with 1 week of low back pain and progressive lower extremity weakness.

87 ic images, intracranial pressure processing, low back pain and real-time tumour tracking; (3) outcome

88 in intensity and disability in patients with low back pain and sciatica after lumbar disc herniation.

89 nce (MR) imaging in patients with persistent low back pain and sciatica effectively demonstrates spin

90 ans should evaluate patients with persistent low back pain and signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or

91 on (SOE, moderate) are effective for chronic low back pain and strengthens previous findings regardin

92 the most important factor leading to chronic low back pain and subsequent disability after discectomy

93 s important to remember about rare causes of low back pain and to perform detailed physical examinati

94 lation (10 kHz SCS) in subjects with chronic low back pain and/or leg pain and performed post hoc ana

95 chological and health behavior correlates of low back pain and/or neck pain.

96 ale patients) undergoing lumbar spine CT for low back pain and/or radiculopathy.

97 Several systemic medications for low back pain are associated with small to moderate, pri

98 harmacologic therapies for primarily chronic low back pain are associated with small to moderate, usu

99 of moderate efficacy for chronic or subacute low back pain are cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise

100 ood evidence of short-term effectiveness for low back pain are NSAIDs, acetaminophen, skeletal muscle

101 pain-related conditions, but its effects on low back pain are uncertain.

102 ent state of managing chronic (and subacute) low back pain as reflected in recently published guideli

103 ders (1.71 billion people [1.68-1.80]), with low back pain being the most prevalent condition in 134

104 ffective for short-term pain relief in acute low back pain but caused sedation.

105 clinically important improvement in chronic low back pain compared with a standardized exercise prog

106 Because non-specific low back pain does not have a known pathoanatomical caus

107 342 adults aged 20 to 70 years with chronic low back pain enrolled between September 2012 and April

108 s approximately 1.5), and a history of prior low back pain episodes and demographic variables were no

109 lated for prediction of persistent disabling low back pain for findings attainable during the clinica

110 thritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and low back pain from 12 community pharmacy sites responded

111 radiofrequency denervation to treat chronic low back pain from these sources.

112 udies of patients with fewer than 8 weeks of low back pain from which likelihood ratios (LRs) were ca

113 en that most patients with acute or subacute low back pain improve over time regardless of treatment,

114 We examined the prevalence of low back pain in adolescents and its association with BM

115 Height was associated with increased risk of low back pain in both genders.

116 Low back pain in children and adolescents is a common pr

117 Higher BMI was significantly associated with low back pain in males (for overweight, odds ratio = 1.0

118 Recommendations for the management of low back pain in primary care emphasise the importance o

119 Guidelines for the management of acute low back pain in primary care recommend early interventi

120 oach for management of non-specific subacute low back pain in primary care.

121 re is a significant genetic effect on severe low back pain in the community.

122 carpal tunnel syndrome, 59 million have had low back pain in the past 3 months, and 30.1 million hav

123 ith DZ twins, equating to a heritability for low back pain in the range of 52-68% and for neck pain i

124 Odds ratios for low back pain in the tallest group compared with the sho

125 ical examination to help place patients with low back pain into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific

126 Chronic low back pain is a common problem that has only modestly

127 Low back pain is associated with degeneration of the int

128 Acute low back pain is common and spinal manipulative therapy

129 e acceptability of acupuncture treatment for low back pain is complex and multifaceted.

130 The most common cause of low back pain is degenerative disease of the interverteb

131 The incidence of low back pain is extremely high and is often linked to i

132 The clinical course of low back pain is often favourable, thus many patients re

133 Low back pain is often the direct result of degeneration

134 Observations: Low back pain is rarely seen in youth before they reach

135 program to adults with chronic or recurrent low back pain led to greater improvements in back functi

136 Low back pain limits activity and is the second most fre

137 Patients with low back pain may have fatty degeneration in erector spi

138 therapy (PT) for primary care patients with low back pain of <12 weeks' duration.

139 nts consulted primary care with non-specific low back pain of less than 12 weeks' duration.

140 ostic imaging is indicated for patients with low back pain only if they have severe progressive neuro

141 incidental but may be found in patients with low back pain or neuromuscular deficits.

142 clinical trials of participants with chronic low back pain originating in the facet joints, sacroilia

143 mptoms, and upper body, lower extremity, and low back pain over six months.

144 Low back pain patients are sometimes offered fusion surg

145 Genome-wide-association studies in chronic low back pain patients identified sepiapterin reductase

146 Patients with CLBP had low back pain persisting for at least 12 months that was

147 egeneration (IVDD) as major cause of chronic low back pain represent the most common degenerative joi

148 ated to a person's health status) indicating low back pain severity were divided according to symptom

149 atory drugs had smaller benefits for chronic low back pain than previously observed, duloxetine was e

150 endorse triage to identify the rare cases of low back pain that are caused by medically serious patho

151 ive inception cohorts of patients with acute low back pain that measured fear of pain (often describe

152 e preceding medications for acute or chronic low back pain that reported pain outcomes, back-specific

153 The proportion of visits to specialists for low back pain that were new consultations increased from

154 studies varied from a low of 31% (n = 8) for low back pain to a high of 68% (n = 23) for fibromyalgia

155 ic reviews and RCTs, for RCTs of adults with low back pain treated in ambulatory settings with SMT co

156 ard deviation]; age range, 20-79 years) with low back pain underwent standard 1.5-T MR imaging, which

157 Prevalence of low back pain was 0.2% for both males and females with o

158 ment-evoked pain in individuals with chronic low back pain was associated with longer reaction times,

159 Seven RCTs involving 864 patients with low back pain were eligible for review.

160 raphy by a sports medicine clinic because of low back pain were evaluated for the presence of asympto

161 mponents for predicting persistent disabling low back pain were maladaptive pain coping behaviors, no

162 nostic imaging and testing for patients with low back pain when severe or progressive neurologic defi

163 Recommendation 3: In patients with chronic low back pain who have had an inadequate response to non

164 y with SPECT can help identify patients with low back pain who would benefit from facet joint injecti

165 ptoms of low back pain alone and symptoms of low back pain with objective corroborating findings.

166 Low back pain with or without objective findings was ass

167 patients with evidence-based information on low back pain with regard to their expected course, advi

168 eporting (OP-8) reduced MR imaging rates for low back pain without conservative therapy in either Med

169 ion of MR imaging examinations performed for low back pain without history of conservative therapy.

170 ed by local DRG inflammation (a rat model of low back pain) and by a peripheral paw inflammation mode

171 h as imaging for patients with uncomplicated low back pain) and using the results for public reportin

172 , and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain) are effective for pain relief.

173 eas, including several (such as headache and low back pain) commonly encountered by internal medicine

174 nophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chron

175 nophen, skeletal muscle relaxants (for acute low back pain), and tricyclic antidepressants (for chron

176 , and tricyclic antidepressants (for chronic low back pain).

177 thy controls and patients with pain (chronic low back pain).

178 131 consecutive patients with low back pain, 18 to 60 years of age, who were referred

179 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain, a positive diagnostic block at the facet

180 that acupuncture may be useful for headache, low back pain, alcohol dependence, and paralysis resulti

181 pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain, although this difference became nonsignif

182 eported by 71% of the patients, 55% reported low back pain, and 19% reported RA.

183 served, duloxetine was effective for chronic low back pain, and benzodiazepines were ineffective for

184 that acetaminophen is ineffective for acute low back pain, and duloxetine is associated with modest

185 for improving function and reducing chronic low back pain, and the benefits persisted for at least s

186 ronic pain, encompassing conditions, such as low back pain, arthritis, persistent post-surgical pain,

187 ack disorders, with a particular emphasis on low back pain, as this area has been most represented in

188 in into 1 of 3 broad categories: nonspecific low back pain, back pain potentially associated with rad

189 sis and assessment of disease progression in low back pain, brain tumours and primary epilepsy; (2) e

190 and height are linked to the pathogenesis of low back pain, but evidence-based confirmation is lackin

191 ion is a commonly used treatment for chronic low back pain, but high-quality evidence for its effecti

192 iscs has been linked with the development of low back pain, but little is known about factors affecti

193 Recommendation 2: For patients with chronic low back pain, clinicians and patients should initially

194 For patients with low back pain, clinicians should consider the use of med

195 For patients with acute low back pain, data are sparse and inconclusive.

196 Secondary outcomes were self-reported low back pain, disability, global improvement, satisfact

197 aluated included reduction or elimination of low back pain, improvement in back-specific and overall

198 spinal manipulation; for chronic or subacute low back pain, intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitatio

199 llitus, and chronic pain conditions (chronic low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, and fibromyalgia).

200 with the largest number of YLDs in 2010 were low back pain, major depressive disorder, other musculos

201 that acetaminophen was ineffective for acute low back pain, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs had

202 heumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, chronic low back pain, or ischemic heart disease since 1995.

203 logic therapy with proven benefits-for acute low back pain, spinal manipulation; for chronic or subac

204 Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associate

205 fferent rheumatic conditions (eg, neck pain, low back pain, systemic lupus erythematosus, fibromyalgi

206 After chronic low back pain, Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) disorders a

207 As the most common cause of low back pain, the cascade of intervertebral disc (IVD)

208 For acute low back pain, the only therapy with good evidence of ef

209 Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with

210 include intense vulvar and vaginal itching, low back pain, uterine cramps, fetal distress, and prete

211 ne does not address noninvasive treatment of low back pain, which is covered by a separate ACP guidel

212 ty-seven patients (23 men and 24 women) with low back pain, who were scheduled for facet joint inject

213 ive-month period because of an acute, severe low back pain, with sphincter dysfunction, partially res

214 cians and American Pain Society guideline on low back pain, would provide better care to patients, im

215 or young and middle-aged adults with chronic low back pain.

216 e treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain.

217 f glial activation, in patients with chronic low back pain.

218 ation of muscle fat content in patients with low back pain.

219 ion and to ameliorate IVD-associated chronic low back pain.

220 d degeneration are believed to contribute to low back pain.

221 sed the relationships of BMI and height with low back pain.

222 cceptability of acupuncture to patients with low back pain.

223 ity, and they can be responsible for chronic low back pain.

224 tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain.

225 spinal injections of methylprednisolone for low back pain.

226 int degeneration is a major cause of chronic low back pain.

227 effective treatment for chronic or recurrent low back pain.

228 ted the effectiveness of massage for chronic low back pain.

229 e lumbar facet joints has been implicated in low back pain.

230 osis, acute myocardial infarction, and acute low back pain.

231 ises following acute, experimentally induced low back pain.

232 Mr S, a 50-year-old man, has long-standing low back pain.

233 ach to using available treatment options for low back pain.

234 gic therapies are available for treatment of low back pain.

235 for chronic or subacute (>4 weeks' duration) low back pain.

236 l restoration are also effective for chronic low back pain.

237 o intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration and low back pain.

238 fective primary care management strategy for low back pain.

239 e, examining the direct health care costs of low back pain.

240 e the most frequently prescribed therapy for low back pain.

241 en among older individuals with arthritis or low back pain.

242 to recovery in populations of patients with low back pain.

243 ollowing diskectomy for persistent radicular low back pain.

244 arch shows widespread use of acupuncture for low back pain.

245 ivity during movement-evoked pain in chronic low back pain.

246 Acupuncture effectively relieves chronic low back pain.

247 tients consulting primary care with subacute low back pain.

248 MRI changes are the strongest predictor of low back pain.

249 to improve decision making for patients with low back pain.

250 eplacement for radiographs for patients with low back pain.

251 ical outcomes for primary care patients with low back pain.

252 ing worse physical health than patients with low back pain.

253 xercise programs in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

254 bark and magnets, have marginal benefit for low back pain.

255 h reduced incidence of back injury claims or low back pain.

256 Alzheimer's disease, headache disorder, and low back pain.

257 structural integrity and elicit debilitating low back pain.

258 acologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for low back pain.

259 d exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain.

260 r acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.

261 r acute or chronic nonradicular or radicular low back pain.

262 uideline addressed pharmacologic options for low back pain.

263 s associated with modest effects for chronic low back pain.

264 udes adults with acute, subacute, or chronic low back pain.

265 ness and harms of SMT for acute (</=6 weeks) low back pain.

266 rstand the role of MBSR in the management of low back pain.

267 recommendations on noninvasive treatment of low back pain.

268 tebral disc degeneration (IVDD) is linked to low back pain.

269 states including osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain.

270 efficacy and safety of MBSR in patients with low back pain.

271 bility as a primary outcome in patients with low back pain.

272 essed nonpharmacologic treatment options for low back pain.

273 prevalence of back and/or neck pain was 31% (low back pain: 34 million, neck pain: 9 million, both ba

274 rm trials showing modest effects for chronic low back pain; trials were not designed to assess seriou

275 nondrug treatments for patients with chronic low back pain?

276 ity were half as likely to have work-related low-back pain (OR=0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.96) and nurses rep

277 e-sacral articulation of young patients with low-back pain and a lumbosacral transitional vertebra.

278 e; age range, 6-19 y; mean age, 15.7 y) with low-back pain and a lumbosacral transitional vertebra.

279 maging on clinical outcomes in patients with low-back pain and no indication of serious underlying co

280 r imaging in patients with acute or subacute low-back pain and without features suggesting a serious

281 lts are most applicable to acute or subacute low-back pain assessed in primary-care settings.

282 d effect on troublesome subacute and chronic low-back pain at a low cost to the health-care provider.

283 f different imaging methods, and duration of low-back pain did not affect the results, but analyses w

284 ition to best practice advice in people with low-back pain in primary care.

285 Low-back pain is a common and costly problem.

286 Low-back pain may result.

287 lso observed in a separate cohort of chronic low-back pain patients and was associated with dynamic c

288 rent sites and accurately classified chronic low-back pain patients in two additional independent dat

289 s reproducible across two cohorts of chronic low-back pain patients obtained from different sites and

290 adults with troublesome subacute or chronic low-back pain were recruited from 56 general practices a

291 Lumbar imaging for low-back pain without indications of serious underlying

292 egenerative disc disease often causes severe low-back pain, a public health problem with huge economi

293 clinical care without immediate imaging for low-back pain.

294 transitional vertebra in young patients with low-back pain.

295 aration of small molecules and proteins with low back pressure are demonstrated by high-performance l

296 ous properties of the monoliths lead to very low back pressures enabling the use of simple mechanical

297 Given their high efficiencies and relatively low back pressures, columns containing these particles w

298 EOPs into portable microfluidic devices with low back pressures.

299 l or clinical features suggestive of serious low-back problems.

300 ty after nervous system injuries and painful low back spasm affect more than 10% of global population