Background: This study examined the bidirectional and temporal-ordinal relationship between loneliness and back pain. Methods: Data from 7,730 participants in waves 6 (2012–2013), 7 (2014–2015), and 8 (2016–2017) of the national English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were analyzed. Back pain was graded on a scale of 0–10 (0, no discomfort; 10, unbearable pain). Loneliness was measured using the Revised University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale. A targeted minimum loss-based estimator was used to examine the bidirectional longitudinal associations between back pain and loneliness. Results: No loneliness in waves 6 and 7 (relative risk [RR]=0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.94), no loneliness in wave 6 but loneliness in wave 7 (RR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.50–0.68), and loneliness in wave 6 but not in wave 7 (RR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.57–0.86) were associated with significant risk reductions of back pain in wave 8 compared with the scenario of loneliness in waves 6 and 7. Mild back pain in wave 6 but moderate back pain (RR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.86) or severe back pain in wave 7 (RR=0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.72) showed a significant risk reduction of loneliness in wave 8 compared with severe back pain in waves 6 and 7. Conclusion Loneliness may be a risk factor for back pain, and back pain may be a risk factor for loneliness. The results of this study will inform the development of more effective interventions for loneliness and back pain.

Background: This study examined the bidirectional and temporal-ordinal relationship between loneliness and back pain. Methods: Data from 7,730 participants in waves 6 (2012–2013), 7 (2014–2015), and 8 (2016–2017) of the national English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were analyzed. Back pain was graded on a scale of 0–10 (0, no discomfort; 10, unbearable pain). Loneliness was measured using the Revised University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale. A targeted minimum loss-based estimator was used to examine the bidirectional longitudinal associations between back pain and loneliness. Results: No loneliness in waves 6 and 7 (relative risk [RR]=0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.94), no loneliness in wave 6 but loneliness in wave 7 (RR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.50–0.68), and loneliness in wave 6 but not in wave 7 (RR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.57–0.86) were associated with significant risk reductions of back pain in wave 8 compared with the scenario of loneliness in waves 6 and 7. Mild back pain in wave 6 but moderate back pain (RR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.86) or severe back pain in wave 7 (RR=0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.72) showed a significant risk reduction of loneliness in wave 8 compared with severe back pain in waves 6 and 7. Conclusion Loneliness may be a risk factor for back pain, and back pain may be a risk factor for loneliness. The results of this study will inform the development of more effective interventions for loneliness and back pain.

Background: This study examined the bidirectional and temporal-ordinal relationship between loneliness and back pain. Methods: Data from 7,730 participants in waves 6 (2012–2013), 7 (2014–2015), and 8 (2016–2017) of the national English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were analyzed. Back pain was graded on a scale of 0–10 (0, no discomfort; 10, unbearable pain). Loneliness was measured using the Revised University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale. A targeted minimum loss-based estimator was used to examine the bidirectional longitudinal associations between back pain and loneliness. Results: No loneliness in waves 6 and 7 (relative risk [RR]=0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.94), no loneliness in wave 6 but loneliness in wave 7 (RR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.50–0.68), and loneliness in wave 6 but not in wave 7 (RR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.57–0.86) were associated with significant risk reductions of back pain in wave 8 compared with the scenario of loneliness in waves 6 and 7. Mild back pain in wave 6 but moderate back pain (RR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.86) or severe back pain in wave 7 (RR=0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.72) showed a significant risk reduction of loneliness in wave 8 compared with severe back pain in waves 6 and 7. Conclusion Loneliness may be a risk factor for back pain, and back pain may be a risk factor for loneliness. The results of this study will inform the development of more effective interventions for loneliness and back pain.

Background: This study examined the bidirectional and temporal-ordinal relationship between loneliness and back pain. Methods: Data from 7,730 participants in waves 6 (2012–2013), 7 (2014–2015), and 8 (2016–2017) of the national English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were analyzed. Back pain was graded on a scale of 0–10 (0, no discomfort; 10, unbearable pain). Loneliness was measured using the Revised University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale. A targeted minimum loss-based estimator was used to examine the bidirectional longitudinal associations between back pain and loneliness. Results: No loneliness in waves 6 and 7 (relative risk [RR]=0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.94), no loneliness in wave 6 but loneliness in wave 7 (RR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.50–0.68), and loneliness in wave 6 but not in wave 7 (RR=0.69; 95% CI, 0.57–0.86) were associated with significant risk reductions of back pain in wave 8 compared with the scenario of loneliness in waves 6 and 7. Mild back pain in wave 6 but moderate back pain (RR=0.55; 95% CI, 0.35–0.86) or severe back pain in wave 7 (RR=0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.72) showed a significant risk reduction of loneliness in wave 8 compared with severe back pain in waves 6 and 7. Conclusion Loneliness may be a risk factor for back pain, and back pain may be a risk factor for loneliness. The results of this study will inform the development of more effective interventions for loneliness and back pain.

A laser endoscopy system was developed in 2012. The system allows blue laser imaging (BLI), BLI-bright, and linked color imaging (LCI) to be performed as modes of narrow-band light observation; these modes have been reported to be useful for tumor detection and characterization. Furthermore, an innovative endoscopy system using four-light emitting diode (LED) multilight technology was released in 2016 to 2017 in some areas in which laser endoscopes have not been approved for use, including the United States and Europe. This system enables blue light imaging (this is also known as BLI) and LCI with an LED light source instead of a laser light source. Several reports have shown that these modes have improved tumor detection. In this paper, we review the efficacy of BLI and LCI with laser and LED endoscopes in tumor detection and characterization.
Colorectal Neoplasms ; Endoscopes ; Endoscopy ; Europe ; United States