4.5 Article

Gender-related differences in prevalence of lumbopelvic region movement impairments in people with low back pain

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY
Volume 37, Issue 12, Pages 744-753

Publisher

J O S P T
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2610

Keywords

limb; lumbar; physical therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional, secondary analysis. OBJECTIVES: To examine potential gender differences in prevalence of lumbopelvic region movement impairments during clinical tests in a sample of people with low back pain (LBP). BACKGROUND: A number of studies have identified factors contributing to differences between men and women in prevalence of lower extremity injuries. Few studies have examined potential gender differences in impairments of people with LBP. METHODS AND MEASURES: Eighty-four males and 86 females (mean +/- SD age, 41.5 +/- 13.3 years) with LBP participated in a standardized examination. Responses from 7 movement tests that examine early lumbopelvic movement were analyzed using chi-square statistics. RESULTS: A greater proportion of men than women displayed early lumbopelvic movement during the majority of limb movements (3/4) and movements potentially affected by limb tissue stiffness (2/2) (P <.05). There were no differences in the proportions of men and women displaying early lumbopelvic movement during a movement presumed to not be affected by limb tissue stiffness (P >.05). Similar results were obtained when analyzing only the subsets of subjects who reported an increase in symptoms with a specific test. CONCLUSION: Our results provide data to suggest that men and women with LBP may move differently in the lumbopelvic region during clinical tests of limb movements and movements potentially affected by limb tissue stiffness. Recognition of gender differences in prevalence of movement impairments is important for improving examination and intervention of people with LBP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available