Physical Activity Supported by Low-Cost Mobile Technology for Back Pain (PAT-Back) to Reduce Disability in Older Adults: Results of a Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal program (PAT-Back) compared to best practice advice on pain and disability in older adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care. METHODS: This feasibility study took place in Fortaleza, Northeast Brazil. The PAT-Back intervention consisted of a program including exercises, pain education, and motivational text messages for the in-home component. The control group received an evidence-based educational booklet. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, adherence and retention rates, level of difficulty of the education and intervention content, perception of utility of mobile technology, and adverse events. The feasibility criteria were previously defined. RESULTS: A total of 248 people were screened, of which 46 older adults were eligible. The retention rate was high (100% in the PAT-Back group and 95% in the control group). The adherence rate to intervention was partially met (60%), whereas the adherence rate to unsupervised exercises was adequate (75%), and perception about safety to perform home exercise was partially acceptable (70%) in the PAT-Back group. In addition, 100% of older adults reported which text messages motivated them to perform the exercises in the PAT-Back group. Difficulty reported by participants in understanding and performing the intervention was small in both groups. Six participants reported transient adverse events in both groups. CONCLUSION: Older adults accepted both interventions. Results demonstrated that the program is feasible, although minor changes targeting adherence and safety in home exercise are needed. IMPACT: This feasibility study supports progression to a full trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal program (PAT-Back) on pain and disability in older adults with chronic LBP within a primary health care setting in low to middle income countries where such data from the older population are scarce and the burden of LBP is increasing.

The effectiveness of weight loss programs for low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain has been associated with obesity or with being overweight. However, there are no high-quality systematic reviews that have been conducted on the effect of all types of weight loss programs focused on individuals with low back pain. Therefore, the present systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of weight loss programs in reducing back pain and disability or increasing quality of life for individuals experiencing low back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches for relevant studies were conducted on CINAHL, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and AMED. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies of intervention or quasi-experimental designs evaluating a weight loss program for persons with low back pain aimed at decreasing back pain and disability. The Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Tool was used to evaluate individual studies and GRADE was used to summarize the quality of the evidence. The review was prospectively registered; PROSPERO#: CRD42020196099. RESULTS: Eleven studies (n = 689 participants) including one randomized controlled trial, two non-randomized studies of intervention and eight single-arm studies were included (seven of which evaluated bariatric surgery). There was low-quality evidence that a lifestyle intervention was no better than waitlist for improving back pain and very low-quality evidence from single-arm studies that back pain improved from baseline after bariatric surgery. Most studies included were of poor quality, primarily due to selection bias, uncontrolled confounders, and lack of blinding, limiting the quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: There is very low-quality evidence that weight loss programs may improve back pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with LBP, although adherence and maintenance are potential barriers to implementation.

The association between whole body vibration exposure and spine degeneration on imaging: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low frequency vibrations from motorized vehicles and heavy equipment have been associated with musculoskeletal disorders. Spine degeneration on diagnostic imaging provides direct and objective measures of the possible effects of such exposures on the spine. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the association of exposure to whole-body vibration (WBV) with spine degeneration on imaging. METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science to July 2021. Two reviewers independently screened search results, assessed quality, and extracted data. Studies evaluating the exposure to WBV and lumbar spine degeneration on imaging were included. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (16 manuscripts) were included. Seven studies including a meta-demonstrated moderate quality evidence of no association between WBV and disc degeneration. There was also moderate quality evidence of no association between WBV and disc height narrowing and osteophytes. Overall, there was low level evidence of no association between WBV and other degenerations findings. CONCLUSIONS: There was moderate to low quality evidence suggesting no association between WBV exposures with spine degeneration on imaging. The results of this study currently do not support assertion that motorized vehicle and WBV exposure accelerates degeneration and causes structural damage to the spine.

Physical activity supported by mobile technology program (PAT-Back) for older adults with back pain at primary care: a feasibility study protocol

Abstract Aim: Low back pain (LBP) is disabling in older adults. Although physical activity interventions positively affect LBP, older adults are underrepresented in the literature. We aim to investigate the feasibility of conducting a study to evaluate a primary care program of exercise therapy and pain education, supported by mobile technology, for older adults with chronic LBP (compared to best practice advice). Methods: In this parallel, two-arm randomized pilot trial, we will recruit adults aged 60 years and older with chronic LBP. The experimental group (Physical Activity supported by low-cost mobile technology for Back pain-PAT-Back) will consist of an 8-week group exercise program based on pain education, exercises, graded activities, and in-home physical activity. Text messages will be sent to promote adherence to home exercises. The control group will receive an evidence-based educational booklet given during one individual consultation. Outcomes will include recruitment rate, adherence and retention rates, level of understanding of the intervention content, perception of the utility of mobile technology, compliance with the accelerometer in a sub-sample of patients, and adverse events. Discussion: The results of this study will form the basis for a large randomized controlled trial. This innovative approach to managing LBP in the primary care setting for older adults, if proven to be effective, can bring an important advance in the knowledge of chronic LBP management to this population.

The effects of combined motor control and isolated extensor strengthening versus general exercise on paraspinal muscle morphology and function in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is a common approach for the management of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP). However, there is no clear mechanistic evidence or consensus on what type of exercise is more effective than others. While considerable evidence suggests a link between lumbar muscle health (e.g., atrophy and fatty infiltration) with functional deficits, it is unknown whether exercises targeting the lumbar spine can lead to noticeable improvements in muscle health and functional outcomes. The primary aim of this study is to compare the effect of combined motor control and isolated strengthening lumbar exercises (MC + ILEX) versus a general exercise group (GE) on multifidus muscle morphology (size and composition). Secondary aims include assessing the effect of the interventions on overall paraspinal muscle health, pain and disability, as well as psychological factors as possible effect modifiers. METHODS: A total of 50 participants with chronic non-specific LBP and moderate to severe disability, aged between 18 and 60, will be recruited from the local orthopaedic clinics and university community. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either the MC + ILEX or GE group. Participants will undergo 24 individually supervised exercise sessions over a 12-week period. The primary outcome will be multifidus morphology (atrophy) and composition (fatty infiltration). Secondary outcomes will be muscle function (e.g., % thickness change during contraction), morphology, lumbar extension strength, pain intensity and disability. Potential treatment effect modifiers including maladaptive cognitions (fear of movement, catastrophizing), anxiety, depression, physical activity, and sleep quality will also be assessed. All measurements will be obtained at baseline, 6-week and 12-week; self-reported outcomes will also be collected at 24-week. Between-subjects repeated measure analysis of variance will be used to examine the changes in paraspinal muscle morphology over the different time points. Linear mixed models will be used to assess whether baseline scores can modify the response to the exercise therapy treatment. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will help clarify which of these two common interventions promote better results in terms of overall paraspinal muscle heath, back pain, disability and psychological factors in adults with chronic LBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTCT04257253 , registered prospectively on February 5, 2020.

Feasibility and Convergent Validity of an Activity Tracker for Low Back Pain Within a Clinical Study: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent condition affecting individuals of all ages. To manage the symptoms and prevent recurrences and flare-ups, physical activity in conjunction with self-management education is recommended. Tools such as diaries and questionnaires have been the gold standard for tracking physical activity in clinical studies. However, there are issues with consistency, accuracy, and recall with the use of these outcome measures. Given the growth of technology in today's society, consumer-grade activity monitors have become a common and convenient method of recording physical activity data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to test the feasibility and convergent validity of a Garmin Vivofit 3 activity tracker in evaluating physical activity levels in a clinical trial of patients with LBP. METHODS: We recruited 17 individuals with nonspecific LBP referred from health care professionals or self-referred through advertisements in the community. The participants entered into a 12-week physical activity and self-management program. Physical activity was assessed using a self-reported questionnaire and the Garmin activity tracker. Activity tracker data (eg, steps taken, distance walked, and intensity minutes) were extracted weekly from the Garmin Connect online platform. Outcomes of pain and activity limitation were assessed weekly using a mobile app. A linear regression was conducted to evaluate if demographic factors (ie, age, gender, pain level) affected the adherence rates to the activity monitor. We also used Pearson correlations to evaluate the convergent validity of the Garmin activity tracker with the physical activity questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean daily adherence rate for activity monitors was 70% (SD 31%) over the 26 weeks of study. The mean response rate for the weekly physical activity measures using REDCap for the first 12 weeks of the study was 91% (SD 17%). None of the hypothesized variables or questionnaires were predictors of response rate. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants were compliant with wearing the tracker, and demographic factors were not found to be predictors of adherence to wearing the device. However, there were poor correlations between the modified International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the activity monitor, demonstrating problems with convergent validity.

A Rasch analysis of the lumbar spine instability questionnaire.

Purpose: A 2014 study found that the Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire predicts response to two different types of exercise therapy. This is the first decision tool that has predicted response to exercise for chronic low back pain. The objective of this study was to evaluate the Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Methods: Baseline data from patients included in a randomized controlled trial with chronic non-specific low back pain were included. Rasch Measurement Theory was used to assess the ordering of items along a common scale, data-to-model fit, Person Separation Index, unidimensionality and Differential Item Functioning. Results: Responses from 172 patients (102 females) underwent Rasch analysis. All Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire items had fit residuals between ± 2.5 and Chi-Square values were non-significant with Bonferroni corrections. The Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire demonstrated a Person Separation Index of 0.64, which is below the recommended cut-off of 0.7. Differential Item Functioning by different pain levels was identified for one item. Conclusion: The Lumbar Spine Instability questionnaire was found to be unidimensional, suggesting that the use of a summary score is appropriate. However, the low Person Separation Index value suggests that more items may be needed to increase the questionnaire's ability to discriminate among individuals with high and low clinical instability.

A comparison of two methods to evaluate a narrow spinal canal: routine magnetic resonance imaging versus three-dimensional reconstruction.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In routine clinical practice, the presence of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is assessed on axial magnetic resonance images (MRI) typically acquired using a preselected spine sagittal angle. Given the natural lordosis of the lumbar spine, not all axial slices will be parallel to the disc and perpendicular to the spinal canal and, thus, are not optimal for the assessment of dural sac cross-sectional area (DCSA). PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare DCSA measurements from routinely acquired clinical images with three-dimensional (3D)-reconstructed images. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample consists of 390 patients referred for lumbar imaging with some aspect of anatomical LSS found, with no prior back surgery, 40 years of age or older, and with available volumetric MR images to allow 3D reconstruction of the spine. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest in this study was dural sac cross sectional area. METHODS: Spine images were 3D reconstructed at the level of the disc, perpendicular to the spinal canal. Dural sac cross-sectional area was measured for both 3D-reconstructed and routinely acquired clinical images using the slice orientation captured. RESULTS: Dural sac cross-sectional area for the lower lumbar levels (L4-L5 and L5-S1) was significantly different between routinely acquired clinical images and 3D-reconstructed images, with a standard error of measurement of 12.98 and 19.73 mm(2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When canal size is of interest, particularly when LSS affecting the lower lumbar levels is of concern, 3D reconstruction of clinical images should be considered.

Predicting response to motor control exercises and graded activity for patients with low back pain: preplanned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for low back pain have small effects. A research priority is to identify patient characteristics associated with larger effects for specific interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify simple clinical characteristics of patients with chronic low back pain who would benefit more from either motor control exercises or graded activity. DESIGN: This study was a secondary analysis of the results of a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: One hundred seventy-two patients with chronic low back pain were enrolled in the trial, which was conducted in Australian physical therapy clinics. The treatment consisted of 12 initial exercise sessions over an 8-week period and booster sessions at 4 and 10 months following randomization. The putative effect modifiers (psychosocial features, physical activity level, walking tolerance, and self-reported signs of clinical instability) were measured at baseline. Measures of pain and function (both measured on a 0-10 scale) were taken at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months by a blinded assessor. RESULTS: Self-reported clinical instability was a statistically significant and clinically important modifier of treatment response for 12-month function (interaction: 2.72; 95% confidence interval=1.39 to 4.06). Participants with high scores on the clinical instability questionnaire (≥9) did 0.76 points better with motor control exercises, whereas those who had low scores (<9) did 1.93 points better with graded activity. Most other effect modifiers investigated did not appear to be useful in identifying preferential response to exercise type. LIMITATIONS: The psychometric properties of the instability questionnaire have not been fully tested. CONCLUSIONS: A simple 15-item questionnaire of features considered indicative of clinical instability can identify patients who respond best to either motor control exercises or graded activity.

Nature and determinants of the course of chronic low back pain over a 12-month period: a cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that low back pain (LBP) is a condition with an unpredictable pattern of exacerbation, remission, and recurrence. However, there is an incomplete understanding of the course of LBP and the determinants of the course. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were: (1) to identify clusters of LBP patients with similar fluctuating pain patterns over time and (2) to investigate whether demographic and clinical characteristics can distinguish these clusters. DESIGN: This study was a secondary analysis of data extracted from a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Pain scores were collected from 155 participants with chronic nonspecific LBP. Pain intensity was measured monthly over a 1-year period by mobile phone short message service. Cluster analysis was used to identify participants with similar fluctuating patterns of pain based on the pain measures collected over a year, and t tests were used to evaluate if the clusters differed in terms of baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The cluster analysis revealed the presence of 3 main clusters. Pain was of fluctuating nature within 2 of the clusters. Out of the 155 participants, 21 (13.5%) had fluctuating pain. Baseline disability (measured with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and treatment groups (from the initial randomized controlled trial) were significantly different in the clusters of patients with fluctuating pain when compared with the cluster of patients without fluctuating pain. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of this study was the fact that participants were undergoing treatment that may have been responsible for the rather positive prognosis observed. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of patients with fluctuating patterns of pain over time were identified. This number could increase if individuals with episodic pain are included in this fluctuating group.

Physical therapy interventions for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapy is commonly prescribed for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS); however, little is known about its effectiveness. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials, and cohort studies evaluating the effectiveness of physical therapy for LSS. DATA SOURCES: Studies were searched on electronic databases to January 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were: clinical diagnosis of LSS with confirmatory imaging, evaluation of physical therapy treatment, presence of a comparison group, and outcomes of pain, disability, function, or quality of life. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes were extracted and, when possible, pooled using RevMan 5, a freely available review program from the Cochrane Library. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ten studies were included: 5 RCTs, 2 controlled trials, 2 mixed-design studies, and 1 longitudinal cohort study. Pooled effects of 2 studies revealed that the addition of a physical therapy modality to exercise had no statistically significant effect on outcome. Pooled effects results of RCTs evaluating surgery versus physical therapy demonstrated that surgery was better than physical therapy for pain and disability at long term (2 years) only. Other results suggested that exercise is significantly better than no exercise, that cycling and body-weight-supported treadmill walking have similar effects, and that corsets are better than no corsets. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this review include the low quality and small number of studies, as well as the heterogeneity in outcomes and treatments. CONCLUSIONS: No conclusions could be drawn from the review regarding which physical therapy treatment is superior for LSS. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that modalities have no additional effect to exercise and that surgery leads to better long-term (2 years) outcomes for pain and disability, but not walking distance, than physical therapy in patients with LSS.

Multifidus and paraspinal muscle group cross-sectional areas of patients with low back pain and control patients: a systematic review with a focus on blinding.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated differences in paraspinal muscle morphology between patients with low back pain (LBP) and control patients. However, inconsistencies in the results of some of these studies may limit generalizations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review studies evaluating paraspinal muscle morphology in patients with LBP and control patients, with a focus on the effects of blinding. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed with the use of relevant databases. Study quality was evaluated by means of the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. STUDY SELECTION: Case-control studies investigating paraspinal muscle size between patients with LBP and control patients who were healthy were included. Studies that compared paraspinal muscle size between symptomatic and asymptomatic sides of patients with unilateral LBP also were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies investigating the same outcome-at the same spinal level and for the same muscle and population-were pooled. Mean differences with 95% confidence interval were calculated for each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies were included. With 1 exception, all pooled results were significantly different statistically between groups, suggesting that paraspinal muscles are smaller in patients with chronic LBP than in control patients and on the symptomatic side of patients with chronic unilateral LBP. In patients with acute unilateral LBP, there was no significant difference between sides. A qualitative examination demonstrated a trend toward an increased effect size when outcome assessors were unblinded. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this review include the small number of studies included and their small sample size. Misclassification of blinding status may have occurred when the study did not report blinding status. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that paraspinal muscles are significantly smaller in patients with chronic LBP than in control patients. Although no definite conclusion could be taken as to the effects of blinding, future imaging studies should consider the use of blinded outcome assessors.

The sedimentation sign for differential diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of the sedimentation sign further by assessing its performance on the differential diagnosis of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and other lumbar conditions with similar clinical presentations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Recently, a new test using MR imaging, the sedimentation sign, was introduced to aid in the diagnosis of LSS. The initial testing demonstrated that the sign was positive in 100% of patients with LSS with decreased walking ability and dural sac cross-sectional areas (CSA) less than 80 mm, and negative in 94% of patients with nonspecific low back pain, no leg pain or claudication and dural sac CSA greater than 120 mm. METHODS: Fifty patients with central or combined LSS, 22 with lateral stenosis only and 43 with posterolateral disc herniation with unilateral radiculopathy were included. Using axial MR images of the lumbar spine, the sedimentation sign was assessed by 2 observers independently, without knowledge of participant clinical history or diagnosis. Frequencies of a positive sign in each patient group were calculated. RESULTS: The sedimentation sign was positive in 2% of patients with disc herniation, 23% with lateral stenosis, and 54% with central or combined stenosis. When the analysis included only patients with LSS with dural sac CSA less than 80 mm and walking limitations similar to the original study introducing the sedimentation sign (n = 17), the proportion of patients presenting with a positive sign increased to 82%. CONCLUSION: The sedimentation sign is more prevalent in patients with the clinical diagnosis of central or combined LSS than in patients with lateral stenosis only or posterolateral disc herniation. Yet, whether it enhances current diagnostic practices remains undetermined.

Effect of motor control exercises versus graded activity in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Motor control exercises to improve control and coordination of trunk muscles and graded activity under the principles of cognitive-behavioral therapy are 2 commonly used exercise therapies, yet there is little evidence to support the use of one intervention over the other. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of motor control exercises and graded activity for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. DESIGN: This study was a prospectively registered randomized controlled trial with outcome assessment and statistical analyses conducted blind to group. SETTING: The study was conducted in primary care settings. PATIENTS: The participants were 172 patients with chronic (>12 weeks) nonspecific low back pain. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either motor control exercises or graded activity. There was no attempt to subclassify patients to match them to a treatment. Patients in both groups received 14 sessions of individualized, supervised exercise therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were average pain over the previous week (numeric rating scale) and function (Patient-Specific Functional Scale); secondary outcomes were disability (24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), global impression of change (Global Perceived Effect Scale), and quality of life (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire [SF-36]). Outcome measures were collected at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 months after intervention. RESULTS: A linear mixed models analysis showed that there were no significant differences between treatment groups at any of the time points for any of the outcomes studied. For example, the effect for pain at 2 months was 0.0 (-0.7 to 0.8). LIMITATIONS: Clinicians could not be blinded to the interventions. CONCLUSION: results of this study suggest that motor control exercises and graded activity have similar effects for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain.

Responsiveness of the 24-, 18- and 11-item versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire.

Several versions of the 24-item Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) have been proposed; however, their responsiveness has not been extensively explored. The objective of this study was to compare the responsiveness of four versions of the RMDQ. Perceived disability was measured using the 24-item, two 18-item and an 11-item RMDQ on 1,069 low back pain patients from six randomised controlled trials. Responsiveness was calculated using effect size, Guyatt's responsiveness index (GRI) and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Effect size analyses showed that both 18-item versions of the RMDQ were superior to the 24- and 11-item versions of the RMDQ. GRI showed that the 24- and 18-item versions of the RMDQ were similar but more responsive than the 11-item. ROC curves revealed that the 11-item was less responsive than the other three versions, which had similar responsiveness. The results of this study demonstrate that the 24-item and both 18-item versions of the RMDQ have similar responsiveness with all having superior responsiveness to the 11-item.

There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the convergent and construct validity of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale used to rate the methodological quality of randomized trials in physiotherapy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PEDro total scores and individual-item scores were extracted from 9,456 physiotherapy trials indexed on PEDro. Convergent validity was tested by comparing PEDro total scores with three other quality scales. Construct validity was tested by regressing the PEDro score and individual-item scores with the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge impact factors (IF) and SCImago journal rankings (SJR) for the journals in which the trials were published. RESULTS: Testing of convergent validity revealed correlations with the other quality scales ranging from 0.31 to 0.69. The PEDro total score was weakly but significantly associated with IF and SJR (P < 0.0001). Eight of the 10 individual scale items that contribute to the PEDro total score were significantly associated with IF. CONCLUSION: This study provides preliminary evidence of the convergent and construct validity of the PEDro total score and the construct validity of eight individual scale items.

Effects of age on passive range of motion of selected peripheral joints in healthy adult females.

The purposes of this study were to investigate whether age influences passive range of motion (PROM) in women and to compare obtained values with other available data. Ninety healthy Caucasian women from 18 to 59 years of age had the PROM of their ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, and wrist measured by using a standard goniometer. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics (mean/SD) and linear regression (to analyze the effect of age on ROM). Age did not significantly influence PROM for the majority of movements tested. For 11 of the tested movements (knee flexion, hip flexion, hip external rotation, glenohumeral and shoulder complex flexion, glenohumeral and shoulder complex external rotation, shoulder complex abduction, shoulder complex extension, and elbow extension), increasing age was associated with a statistically significant decrease in PROM, whereas for ankle dorsiflexion, ankle plantarflexion, ankle inversion, and hip abduction, increasing age was associated with an increase in PROM. The change in PROM associated with age was typically small and ranged from -0.420 to 0.207 degrees per year. The difference in mean PROM between this study and published normative values ranged from -16.6 to +25.9 degrees. For women aged 18 to 59, PROM of the extremities is relatively constant, suggesting that a single table of reference values for adult females is an appropriate approximation for clinical practice except for glenohumeral and shoulder complex external rotation, which were found to clinically significantly decrease with age.

Differences in range of motion between dominant and nondominant sides of upper and lower extremities.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare ranges of motion (ROM) between dominant and nondominant sides for the joints of the upper and lower extremities. METHODS: Ninety healthy white women from 18 to 59 years of age were measured in this study. Active and passive ROM were measured for the ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, and wrist using a standard goniometer. The order of the joints, motion, sides, and active or passive motion testing was randomly selected. A paired t test was used for the comparison between sides. RESULTS: The results of this study showed a statistically significant difference between dominant and nondominant sides for 34 of the 60 ROM measured. The maximum mean difference between sides for all ROM measured was 7.5 degrees . CONCLUSION: The results of this show that some ROM are different between body sides and that when these differences exist they are minimal and may not be clinically insignificant. These results support the practice of using the opposite side of the body as an indicator of preinjury or normal extremity ROM.