PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between domestic and recreational physical activity (PA) and low back pain (LBP) after adjusting for genetic and environmental influences. METHODS: Twins were recruited through the Australian twin registry. LBP prevalence and domestic (vigorous gardening/heavy yard work) and recreational (light walking, moderate/vigorous) PA were assessed by a validated questionnaire. Associations were analysed using a cross-sectional analysis of the complete sample of 486 twins, including a matched case-control analysis of 69 twin pairs discordant for LBP. Logistic regression and the lincom post-estimation method were used for the analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The case-control analysis showed that LBP was significantly associated with heavy domestic PA (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.29-6.43), whereas no significant association was found with any form of recreational PA. The results of the lincom command indicated that being engaged in both heavy domestic and recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous) was associated with a significantly increased probability of LBP compared with being engaged only in recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous, ORs 3.48-4.22). Using the whole sample, we found weaker associations but in the same direction. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that heavy domestic PA is associated with an increased probability of LBP, and the combination of heavy domestic and recreational PA might increase the probability of LBP more so than heavy domestic or recreational PA alone. Associations being greater when using the co-twin case-control analysis indicate that genetic and environmental factors influence the relationship between PA and LBP, and demonstrate the value of a twin design.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between domestic and recreational physical activity (PA) and low back pain (LBP) after adjusting for genetic and environmental influences. METHODS: Twins were recruited through the Australian twin registry. LBP prevalence and domestic (vigorous gardening/heavy yard work) and recreational (light walking, moderate/vigorous) PA were assessed by a validated questionnaire. Associations were analysed using a cross-sectional analysis of the complete sample of 486 twins, including a matched case-control analysis of 69 twin pairs discordant for LBP. Logistic regression and the lincom post-estimation method were used for the analysis. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The case-control analysis showed that LBP was significantly associated with heavy domestic PA (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.29-6.43), whereas no significant association was found with any form of recreational PA. The results of the lincom command indicated that being engaged in both heavy domestic and recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous) was associated with a significantly increased probability of LBP compared with being engaged only in recreational PA (light walking or moderate/vigorous, ORs 3.48-4.22). Using the whole sample, we found weaker associations but in the same direction. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that heavy domestic PA is associated with an increased probability of LBP, and the combination of heavy domestic and recreational PA might increase the probability of LBP more so than heavy domestic or recreational PA alone. Associations being greater when using the co-twin case-control analysis indicate that genetic and environmental factors influence the relationship between PA and LBP, and demonstrate the value of a twin design.
Authors: Elisabeth Kraigher-Krainer; Asya Lyass; Joseph M Massaro; Douglas S Lee; Jennifer E Ho; Daniel Levy; William B Kannel; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Clermont E Dionne; Kate M Dunn; Peter R Croft; Alf L Nachemson; Rachelle Buchbinder; Bruce F Walker; Mary Wyatt; J David Cassidy; Michel Rossignol; Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde; Jan Hartvigsen; Päivi Leino-Arjas; Ute Latza; Shmuel Reis; Maria Teresa Gil Del Real; Francisco M Kovacs; Birgitta Oberg; Christine Cedraschi; Lex M Bouter; Bart W Koes; H Susan J Picavet; Maurits W van Tulder; Kim Burton; Nadine E Foster; Gary J Macfarlane; Elaine Thomas; Martin Underwood; Gordon Waddell; Paul Shekelle; Ernest Volinn; Michael Von Korff Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Gregory Livshits; Maria Popham; Ida Malkin; Philip N Sambrook; Alex J Macgregor; Timothy Spector; Frances M K Williams Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Pradeep Suri; Edward J Boyko; Nicholas L Smith; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Frances M K Williams; Gail P Jarvik; Jack Goldberg Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Markus Hübscher; Jan Hartvigsen; Matthew Fernandez; Kaare Christensen; Paulo Ferreira Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-08-01 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Lars-Kristian Lunde; Markus Koch; Stein Knardahl; Morten Wærsted; Svend Erik Mathiassen; Mikael Forsman; Andreas Holtermann; Kaj Bo Veiersted Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ana Paula Carvalho-E-Silva; Marina B Pinheiro; Manuela L Ferreira; Markus Hübscher; Lucas Calais-Ferreira; Paulo H Ferreira Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Hosam Alzahrani; Debra Shirley; Sonia W M Cheng; Martin Mackey; Emmanuel Stamatakis Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 7.179
Authors: Abisola Osinuga; Chelsea Hicks; Segun E Ibitoye; Marin Schweizer; Nathan B Fethke; Kelly K Baker Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Abisola Osinuga; Brandi Janssen; Nathan B Fethke; William T Story; John A Imaledo; Kelly K Baker Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Lars-Kristian Lunde; Markus Koch; Kaj Bo Veiersted; Gunn-Helen Moen; Morten Wærsted; Stein Knardahl Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.390