CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,507Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyPregnancy-related medical research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Rising Prevalence of Chronic Low Back Pain

Open access
Freburger, Janet K., Holmes, George M., Agans, Robert P., Jackman, Anne M., Darter, Jane D., Wallace, Andrea S., Castel, Liana D., Kalsbeek, William D., Carey, Timothy S.·2009·Archives of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.543PMC PMC4339077
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: National or state-level estimates on trends in the prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP) are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of chronic LBP and the demographic, health-related, and health care-seeking characteristics of individuals with the condition have changed over the last 14 years. METHODS: A cross-sectional, telephone survey of a representative sample of North Carolina households was conducted in 1992 and repeated in 2006. A total of 4437 households were contacted in 1992 and 5357 households in 2006 to identify noninstitutionalized adults 21 years or older with chronic (>3 months), impairing LBP or neck pain that limits daily activities. These individuals were interviewed in more detail about their health and health care seeking. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP rose significantly over the 14-year interval, from 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%-4.4%) in 1992 to 10.2% (95% CI, 9.3%-11.0%) in 2006. Increases were seen for all adult age strata, in men and women, and in white and black races. Symptom severity and general health were similar for both years. The proportion of individuals who sought care from a health care provider in the past year increased from 73.1% (95% CI, 65.2%-79.8%) to 84.0% (95% CI, 80.8%-86.8%), while the mean number of visits to all health care providers were similar (19.5 [1992] vs 19.4 [2006]). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in North Carolina, with continuing high levels of disability and health care use. A substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past 2 decades may be related to this rising prevalence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.543

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,507

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Freburger, J. K., Holmes, G. M., Agans, R. P., Jackman, A. M., Darter, J. D., Wallace, A. S., Castel, L. D., Kalsbeek, W. D., & Carey, T. S.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2009-02-09
Volume
169
Issue
3
Pages
251
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archinternmed.2008.543
PMC
PMC4339077
OpenAlex
W2165014123
Cited by
1,507
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 120 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 127 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 95 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 97 · 2013: 104 · 2012: 102
FWCI
56.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Iowa Research Online (University of Iowa) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ar051970-02, 2r24hd050924-06)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (T32HS000032)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (T32 NR 08856, T32NR008856)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R0-1 AR051970)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24 HD-050924)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
chronic low back pain, prevalence trends, neck pain, health-seeking behavior, health care utilization, disability, racial differences, age differences, North Carolina, health care costs
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Disability Evaluation, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, North Carolina, Office Visits, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Prevalence, Low Back Pain, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Racial Groups, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review