4.3 Article

Non-specific low back pain in adolescents from the south of Portugal: prevalence and associated factors

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SCIENCE
卷 19, 期 6, 页码 883-892

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1007/s00776-014-0626-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation for Science and Technology - FCT [SFRH/PROTEC/67663/2010]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition in children and adolescents, and the prevalence has been increasing over the years. Most cases of LBP are due to non-specific causes; however, the role of these risk factors is still controversial. This study determined the prevalence of LBP in Portuguese adolescents and characterized the associated factors. Methods The design of this study was observational, analytical and cross-sectional. The sample included 966 adolescents from southern Portugal, aged between 10 and 16 years. The assessments included a questionnaire to characterize the presence of LBP, postural habits, body mass index (BMI) and backpack weights and to use a scoliometer to evaluate the presence of scoliosis. Results One hundred fifty-two (15.7 %) students had LPB at the present time, 456 (47.2 %) had experienced it in the last year, and 600 (62.1 %) had lifetime prevalence of LBP. Girls have 2.05 more probability of presenting LBP than boys (95 % CI 1.58-2.65; p<0.001), and older students have a 1.54 greater probability (95 % CI 1.19-1.99; p = 0.001). Students who sit with the spine incorrectly positioned presented 2.49 greater probability of having LBP (95 % CI 1.91-3.2; p<0.001), students using improper positions for watching TV or playing games have 2.01 greater probabilities (95 % CI 1.55-2.61; p<0.001), and those who adopt an incorrect standing posture have a 3.39 greater chance of experiencing LBP (95 % CI 2.19-5.23; p<0.001). Conclusions This study found a high prevalence of LBP in adolescents, with higher values in older students, female students and those who adopted incorrect positions when sitting or standing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据