Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990–2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background: Low back pain is highly prevalent and the main cause of years lived with disability (YLDs). We present the most up-to-date global, regional, and national data on prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2021. Methods: Population-based studies from 1980 to 2019 identified in a systematic review, international surveys, US medical claims data, and dataset contributions by collaborators were used to estimate the prevalence and YLDs for low back pain from 1990 to 2020, for 204 countries and territories. Low back pain was defined as pain between the 12th ribs and the gluteal folds that lasted a day or more; input data using alternative definitions were adjusted in a network meta-regression analysis. Nested Bayesian meta-regression models were used to estimate prevalence and YLDs by age, sex, year, and location. Prevalence was projected to 2050 by running a regression on prevalence rates using Socio-demographic Index as a predictor, then multiplying them by projected population estimates. Findings: In 2020, low back pain affected 619 million (95% uncertainty interval 554–694) people globally, with a projection of 843 million (759–933) prevalent cases by 2050. In 2020, the global age-standardised rate of YLDs was 832 per 100 000 (578–1070). Between 1990 and 2020, age-standardised rates of prevalence and YLDs decreased by 10·4% (10·9–10·0) and 10·5% (11·1–10·0), respectively. A total of 38·8% (28·7–47·0) of YLDs were attributed to occupational factors, smoking, and high BMI. Interpretation: Low back pain remains the leading cause of YLDs globally, and in 2020, there were more than half a billion prevalent cases of low back pain worldwide. While age-standardised rates have decreased modestly over the past three decades, it is projected that globally in 2050, more than 800 million people will have low back pain. Challenges persist in obtaining primary country-level data on low back pain, and there is an urgent need for more high-quality, primary, country-level data on both prevalence and severity distributions to improve accuracy and monitor change. Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Global, regional, and national burden of osteoarthritis, 1990–2020 and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

Background Osteoarthritis is the most common form of arthritis in adults, characterised by chronic pain and loss of mobility. Osteoarthritis most frequently occurs after age 40 years and prevalence increases steeply with age. WHO has designated 2021–30 the decade of healthy ageing, which highlights the need to address diseases such as osteoarthritis, which strongly affect functional ability and quality of life. Osteoarthritis can coexist with, and negatively effect, other chronic conditions. Here we estimate the burden of hand, hip, knee, and other sites of osteoarthritis across geographies, age, sex, and time, with forecasts of prevalence to 2050. Methods In this systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study, osteoarthritis prevalence in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 was estimated using data from population-based surveys from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis, and US insurance claims for all of the osteoarthritis sites, including the other types of osteoarthritis category. The reference case definition was symptomatic, radiographically confirmed osteoarthritis. Studies using alternative definitions from the reference case definition (for example self-reported osteoarthritis) were adjusted to reference using regression models. Osteoarthritis severity distribution was obtained from a pooled meta-analysis of sources using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Final prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights to calculate years lived with disability (YLDs). Prevalence was forecast to 2050 using a mixed-effects model. Findings Globally, 595 million (95% uncertainty interval 535–656) people had osteoarthritis in 2020, equal to 7·6% (95% UI 6·8–8·4) of the global population, and an increase of 132·2% (130·3–134·1) in total cases since 1990. Compared with 2020, cases of osteoarthritis are projected to increase 74·9% (59·4–89·9) for knee, 48·6% (35·9–67·1) for hand, 78·6% (57·7–105·3) for hip, and 95·1% (68·1–135·0) for other types of osteoarthritis by 2050. The global age-standardised rate of YLDs for total osteoarthritis was 255·0 YLDs (119·7–557·2) per 100 000 in 2020, a 9·5% (8·6–10·1) increase from 1990 (233·0 YLDs per 100 000, 109·3–510·8). For adults aged 70 years and older, osteoarthritis was the seventh ranked cause of YLDs. Age-standardised prevalence in 2020 was more than 5·5% in all world regions, ranging from 5677·4 (5029·8–6318·1) per 100 000 in southeast Asia to 8632·7 (7852·0–9469·1) per 100 000 in high-income Asia Pacific. Knee was the most common site for osteoarthritis. High BMI contributed to 20·4% (95% UI –1·7 to 36·6) of osteoarthritis. Potentially modifiable risk factors for osteoarthritis such as recreational injury prevention and occupational hazards have not yet been explored in GBD modelling. Interpretation Age-standardised YLDs attributable to osteoarthritis are continuing to rise and will lead to substantial increases in case numbers because of population growth and ageing, and because there is no effective cure for osteoarthritis. The demand on health systems for care of patients with osteoarthritis, including joint replacements, which are highly effective for late stage osteoarthritis in hips and knees, will rise in all regions, but might be out of reach and lead to further health inequity for individuals and countries unable to afford them. Much more can and should be done to prevent people getting to that late stage

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

The physiotherapy workforce in Nepal: A national survey

Background: Physiotherapy is a relatively young profession in Nepal. Education standards, and workforce organization and representation have improved in recent years, but there is no detailed workforce data to support decision-making and long-term planning. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the demographic characteristics, physiotherapy practice areas, settings and employment characteristics of physiotherapists in Nepal; and to document job satisfaction and the factors that influence it. Methods: In a cross-sectional survey, we asked Nepali physiotherapists about their sociodemographic characteristics, employment or physiotherapy practice area and settings, and job satisfaction. We assessed the associations between sociodemographic factors and job satisfaction among physiotherapists using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions. We invited all Nepali physiotherapists to participate via email, social media and visits to hospitals. Results: Of the 1120 physiotherapists who were contacted, 52% (female: 287; male: 293) completed the survey. The majority of the participants (75%) were less than 30 years old. The majority (73%) held a Bachelor of Physiotherapy degree. Eighty percent were employed at the time of data collection; 58% had 1–4 years of experience. The majority (77%) practiced in or near the capital Kathmandu. Most physiotherapist worked either in private hospitals (46%) or in private physiotherapy practices (26%), rehabilitation centres (19%) and 11% practiced in public hospitals. The most common areas of practice were musculoskeletal physiotherapy (90%) and adult neurology (67%). More than half of the physiotherapist (53%) felt that they were underpaid and 41% were not satisfied with their current job status. The majority of the physiotherapists (67%) reported that they participated in continuing professional development activities. Multivariable logistic regression showed that physiotherapists who had a higher remuneration were more likely to be satisfied with their job. Conclusions: The majority of the physiotherapy workforce in Nepal is well-educated, young and at an early career stage. Most physiotherapists work in musculoskeletal and adult neurological physiotherapy, in private practices or private hospitals near Kathmandu. Job dissatisfaction was common and was related to low annual income. This first nationwide survey described the current physiotherapy workforce and provides comparison data for future physiotherapy workforce surveys

One step at a time. Shaping consensus on research priorities and terminology in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain: an international modified e-Delphi study

Abstract Background Telehealth has emerged as an alternative model for treatment delivery and has become an important component of health service delivery. However, there is inconsistency in the use of terminologies and a lack of research priorities in telehealth in musculoskeletal pain. The purpose of this international, multidisciplinary expert panel assembled in a modified three-round e-Delphi survey is to achieve a consensus on research priorities and for the standard terminology for musculoskeletal pain telehealth practice. Methods In this international modified e-Delphi survey, we invited an expert panel consisting of researchers, clinicians, consumer representatives, industry partners, healthcare managers, and policymakers to participate in a three-round e-Delphi. Expert panels were identified through the Expertscape website, PubMed database, social media, and a snowball approach. In Round 1, potential research priorities and terminologies were presented to panel members. Panel members rated the agreement of each research priority on a 5-point Likert scale and an 11-point numerical scale, and each terminology on a 5-point Likert scale for the "telehealth in musculoskeletal pain " field over rounds. At least 80% of the panel members were required to agree to be deemed a consensus. We analyzed the data descriptively and assessed the stability of the results using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test. Results We performed an international e-Delphi survey from February to August 2022. Of 694 invited people, 160 panel members participated in the first round, 133 in the second round (83% retention), and 134 in the third round (84% retention). Most of the panel members were researchers 76 (47%), clinicians 57 (36%), and consumer representatives 9 (6%) of both genders especially from Brazil 31 (19%), India 22 (14%), and Australia 19 (12%) in the first round. The panel identified fourteen telehealth research priorities spanned topics including the development of strategies using information and communication technology, telehealth implementation services, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telehealth interventions, equity of telehealth interventions, qualitative research and eHealth literacy in musculoskeletal pain conditions from an initial list of 20 research priorities. The consensus was reached for "digital health" and "telehealth" as standard terminologies from an initial list of 37 terminologies. Conclusion An international, multidisciplinary expert consensus recommends that future research should consider the 14 research priorities for telehealth musculoskeletal pain reached. Additionally, the terms digital health and telehealth as the most appropriate terminologies to be used in musculoskeletal telehealth research. Register Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/tqmz2/ )