Table 3 Studies results according to the type of inflammatory biomarker
Biomarker | Articles | Type of statistic | Source | Technique | Results | Association: No, positive, negative (r) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hs-CRP | Gebhardt 2006 [40] | ANOVA, Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons | Serum | ELISA | There were no significant differences between groups | No (ALBP) No (CLBP) |
CRP | Briggs 2013 [30] | Chi-square, odds ratio, logistic regression | Serum | NR | Significantly higher in the LBP group (OR = 1.74; 95% CI) | Positive |
CRP | Klyne 2016 [34] | Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis, ANOVA, quantile and linear regression models | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (p = 0.003) | Positive |
CRP | Klyne 2018 [41] | T-test | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (p = 0.014) | Positive |
CRP | Ngai Ho 2019 [36] | Linear regression and logistic regression | Serum | Latex immunoassay methodology | Significantly higher in the LBP group (OR = 1.01, [1.00–1.01], p = 0.013) | Positive |
Hs-CRP | Dadkhah 2020 [38] | T-test and Chi-square | Serum | NR | Significantly higher in the LBP group (P < 0.001) | Positive |
Hs-CRP | Beynon 2021 [42] | Multinomial logistic regression and multi-trajectory models | Serum | Immunoturbidimetric method | There were no significant differences between groups | No |
CRP | Hao-Wei Xu 2021 [39] | Chi-squared, Spearman's correlation and multiple regression | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (p < 0.001) | Positive |
CRP | Klyne 2022 [43] | ANOVAs, Tukey's post hoc, multiple comparisons test | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (p < 0.001) | Positive |
IL-1 and IL-1β | Klyne 2016 [34] | Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis, ANOVA, quantile and linear regression | Serum | ELISA | There were no significant differences between groups (p = 0.197) | No |
Luchting 2016 [33] | Mann–Whitney U test, Fisher's test, one-way ANOVA test | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the neuropathic pain group (1.4-fold). No significant difference in the CLBP group | No | |
Queiroz 2017 [35] | Spearman's correlation, linear regression models | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups | No | |
Klyne 2018 [41] | T-test | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups (p > 0.240) | No | |
Teodorczyk-Injeyan 2019 | Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney and Spearman’s correlation | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the ALBP group (P = 0.0001 to 0.003). No significant difference in the CLBP group | Positive (ALBP) No (CLBP) | |
Dadkhah 2020 [38] | T-test and Chi-square | Serum | NR | Significantly higher in the LBP group (P = 0.001) | Positive | |
Hao-Wei Xu 2021 [39] | Chi-squared test, Spearman's correlation and multiple regression | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups (P = 0.516) | No | |
Klyne 2022 [43] | ANOVAs, Tukey's post hoc, multiple comparisons test | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups (p > 0 .314) | No | |
IL-6 | Heffner 2011 [29] | Independent t tests and Pearson’s correlation coefficients | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups (P = 0.14) | No |
Queiroz 2016 [32] | Mann–Whitney U test | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups (p = 0.373) | No | |
Yong Li 2016 | Student's t test and Tukey's post hoc | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the CLBP group (P < 0.05) | Positive | |
Klyne 2016 [34] | F-test | Serum | ELISA | Elevated in the high pain subgroup (F = 3.2, p = 0.045), but there were no significant differences between low pain and control group (p = 0.141) | Positive | |
Queiroz 2017 [35] | Mann–Whitney U test | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (P < 0.2) | Positive | |
Klyne 2018 [41] | T-test | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups (p > 0.240) | No | |
Teodorczyk-Injeyan 2019 [37] | Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney and Spearman’s correlation | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the ALBP group (P = 0.0001 to 0.003). No significant difference in the CLBP group | Positive (ALBP) No (CLBP) | |
Dadkhah 2020 [38] | T-test and Chi-square | Serum | NR | Significantly higher in the LBP group (P = 0.037) | Positive | |
Hao-Wei Xu 2021 [39] | Chi-squared test, Spearman’s correlation, multiple regression | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (P = 0.013) | Positive | |
Klyne 2022 [43] | ANOVAs, Tukey's post hoc, multiple comparisons test | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (p = 0.004) | Positive | |
IL-10 | Yong Li 2016 [19] | Student's t test and Tukey's post hoc | Serum | ELISA | Significantly lower in the CLBP group (P < 0.01) | Negative |
Teodorczyk-Injeyan 2019 [37] | Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney and Spearman’s correlation | Serum | ELISA | Significantly lower in the ALBP and CLBP group (P = 0.008 and 0.03, respectively) | Negative | |
TNF-α | Queiroz 2016 [32] | Mann–Whitney U test | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the ALBP group (p = 0.016) | Positive |
Klyne 2016 [34] | F-test | Serum | ELISA | There were no significant differences between groups (p = 0.174) | No | |
Queiroz 2017 [35] | Spearman's, linear regression models | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (P < 0.2) | Positive | |
Klyne 2018 [41] | T-test | Serum | ELISA | No significant difference between groups (p > 0.240) | No | |
Teodorczyk-Injeyan 2019 [37] | Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney and Spearman’s correlation | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the ALBP group (P = 0.0001 to 0.003). Significantly higher in the CLBP group (P = 0.003) | Positive (ALBP) Positive (CLBP) | |
Dadkhah 2020 [38] | T-test and Chi-square | Serum | NR | Significantly higher in the LBP group (P < 0.001) | Positive | |
Hao-Wei Xu 2021 [39] | Chi-squared test, Spearman’s correlation, multiple regression | Serum | ELISA | There were no significant differences between groups (P > 0.05) | No | |
Klyne 2022 [43] | ANOVAs, Tukey's post hoc, multiple comparisons test | Serum | ELISA | Significantly higher in the LBP group (p < 0.001) | Positive |