IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0200677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modic changes—Their associations with low back pain and activity limitation: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Christofer Herlin
  • Per Kjaer
  • Ansgar Espeland
  • Jan Sture Skouen
  • Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde
  • Jaro Karppinen
  • Jaakko Niinimäki
  • Joan Solgaard Sørensen
  • Kjersti Storheim
  • Tue Secher Jensen

Abstract

Background: Previous systematic reviews have reported positive associations between Modic changes (MCs) and low back pain (LBP), but due to their narrow scope and new primary studies, there is a need for a comprehensive systematic review. Our objectives were to investigate if MCs are associated with non-specific LBP and/or activity limitation and if such associations are modified by other factors. Methods: A protocol for this review was registered at PROSPERO prior to commencing the work (PROSPERO record: CRD42015017350). The MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant studies from first record to June 15th 2016. Prospective or retrospective cross-sectional cohort studies and case-control studies including people of all ages from general, working and clinical study populations were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias assessment and data extraction for associations and potential modifiers were completed independently by pairs of reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed for homogeneous studies and presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. Results: In all, 5210 citations were identified and 31 studies were included. One study had low risk of bias. Fifteen studies (48%) reported statistically significant positive associations between MCs and LBP and one study found a statistically significant negative association. Meta-analysis performed for studies using concordant pain with provocative discography as the clinical outcome resulted in an OR of 4.01 (1.52–10.61). One of seven studies reported a statistically significant positive association between MCs and activity limitation. Lumbar disc level and disc degeneration were found to modify the association between MCs and LBP. Conclusions: The results from this comprehensive systematic review indicate that the associations between MCs and LBP-related outcomes are inconsistent. The high risk of bias and the heterogeneity in terms of study samples, clinical outcomes and prevalence estimates of MCs and LBP may explain these findings. It is likely that new studies with low risk of bias will affect the direction and strength of these associations.

Suggested Citation

  • Christofer Herlin & Per Kjaer & Ansgar Espeland & Jan Sture Skouen & Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde & Jaro Karppinen & Jaakko Niinimäki & Joan Solgaard Sørensen & Kjersti Storheim & Tue Secher Jensen, 2018. "Modic changes—Their associations with low back pain and activity limitation: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200677
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200677
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200677
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200677&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0200677?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anonymous, 2018. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 447-448, September.
    2. Anonymous, 2016. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 647-648, December.
    3. Anonymous, 2016. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-3, March.
    4. Anonymous, 2018. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 649-650, December.
    5. Anonymous, 2016. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 217-219, June.
    6. Anonymous, 2018. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 1-3, March.
    7. Anonymous, 2016. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 421-423, September.
    8. Anonymous, 2018. "Letter from the Editor," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 245-247, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark J. Lambrechts & Parker Brush & Tariq Z. Issa & Gregory R. Toci & Jeremy C. Heard & Amit Syal & Meghan M. Schilken & Jose A. Canseco & Christopher K. Kepler & Alexander R. Vaccaro, 2022. "Evaluating the Impact of Modic Changes on Operative Treatment in the Cervical and Lumbar Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-18, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beck, Susanne & Prügl, Reinhard & Walter, Katharina, 2020. "Communicating the family firm brand: Antecedents and performance effects," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 95-107.
    2. David J. G. Slusky & Donna K. Ginther, 2021. "Did Medicaid expansion reduce medical divorce?," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1139-1174, December.
    3. Poulis, Konstantinos & Kastanakis, Minas, 2020. "On theorizing and methodological fetishism," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 676-683.
    4. Patrick Baur & Christy Getz & Jennifer Sowerwine, 2017. "Contradictions, consequences and the human toll of food safety culture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 713-728, September.
    5. Yasmin Ibrahim & Anita Howarth, 2021. "The Munchetty controversy: Empire, race, and the BBC," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 231-247, January.
    6. Wilson, J. Holton & Dingus, Rebecca & Hoyle, Jeffrey, 2020. "Women count: Perceptions of forecasting in sales," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 637-646.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0200677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.