The prevalence of ''vertebral endplate signal changes'' (VESC) and its association with low back pain (LBP) varies greatly between studies. This wide range in reported prevalence rates and associations with LBP could be explained by differences in the definitions of VESC, LBP, or study sample. The objectives of this systematic critical review were to investigate the current literature in relation to the prevalence of VESC (including Modic changes) and the association with non-specific low back pain (LBP). The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SveMED databases were searched for the period 1984 to November 2007. Included were the articles that reported the prevalence of VESC in non-LBP, general, working, and clinical populations. Included were also articles that investigated the association between VESC and LBP. Articles on specific LBP conditions were excluded. A checklist including items related to the research questions and overall quality of the articles was used for data collection and quality assessment. The reported prevalence rates were studied in relation to mean age, gender, study sample, year of publication, country of study, and quality score. To estimate the association between VESC and LBP, 2 9 2 tables were created to calculate the exact odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Eighty-two study samples from 77 original articles were identified and included in the analysis. The median of the reported prevalence rates for any type of VESC was 43% in patients with non-specific LBP and/or sciatica and 6% in non-clinical populations. The prevalence was positively associated with age and was negatively associated with the overall quality of the studies. A positive association between VESC and non-specific LBP was found in seven of ten studies from the general, working, and clinical populations with ORs from 2.0 to 19.9. This systematic review shows that VESC is a common MRI-finding in patients with non-specific LBP and is associated with pain. However, it should be noted that VESC may be present in individuals without LBP.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPrevious 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThe 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.