| Literature DB >> 25189936 |
Ireneusz M Kowalski, Halina Protasiewicz-Fałdowska, Michał Dwornik1, Bogusław Pierożyński, Juozas Raistenskis, Wojciech Kiebzak.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening tests play a significant role in rapid and reliable assessment of normal individual development in the entire population of children and adolescents. Body posture screening tests carried out at schools reveal that 50-60% of children and adolescents demonstrate body posture abnormalities, with 10% of this group at risk for progressive spinal deformities. This necessitates the search for effective and economically feasible forms of screening diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of clinical evaluation of body posture compared to objective assessment with the Zebris CMS-10 system (Zebris Medical GmbH).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25189936 PMCID: PMC4169808 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-221
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pediatr ISSN: 1471-2431 Impact factor: 2.125
Figure 1Marking of anatomical skeletal reference landmarks.
Figure 2Clinical examination with Saunders inclinometer. Reference marker is a belt attached below iliac spines.
Figure 3Examination with Zebris CMS-10. Ultrasound probe recording the position of marked skeletal landmarks.
Figure 4Results of evaluation of thoracic kyphosis in the sagittal plane in boys.
Figure 5Results of evaluation of lumbar lordosis in the sagittal plane in boys.
Figure 6Results of evaluation of pelvic rotation in the sagittal plane in boys.
Figure 7Results of evaluation of thoracic kyphosis in the sagittal plane in girls.
Figure 8Results of evaluation of lumbar lordosis in the sagittal plane in girls.
Figure 9Results of evaluation of pelvic rotation in the sagittal plane in girls.
Trunk assessment in boys, sagittal and frontal planes
| Trunk assessment | CMS -10 evaluation | Clinical evaluation | Calculated Chi 2 | Significance level p < 0.05 | Degrees of freedom | Tabular Chi 2 | Hypothesis accepted | Cramer’s V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyphosis | 12.8 | 0.05 | 2 | 5.9 | alternative | 0.309 | ||
| Accentuated | 21 | 17 | ||||||
| Reduced | 25 | 10 | ||||||
| Normal | 21 | 40 | ||||||
| Total | 67 | 67 | ||||||
| Lordosis | 25.1 | 0.05 | 2 | 5.9 | alternative | 0.433 | ||
| Accentuated | 33 | 9 | ||||||
| Reduced | 17 | 15 | ||||||
| Normal | 17 | 43 | ||||||
| Total | 67 | 67 | ||||||
| Pelvis | 1.7 | 0.05 | 1 | 3.7 | null | 0.112 | ||
| Rotated | 49 | 42 | ||||||
| Not rotated | 18 | 25 | ||||||
| Total | 67 | 67 | ||||||
| Asymmetry | 5.88 | 0.05 | 2 | 5.9 | null | 0.173 | ||
| Shoulder girdle | 48 | 25 | ||||||
| Inferior scapular angles | 45 | 13 | ||||||
| Pelvic obliqueness | 37 | 28 | ||||||
| Total | 130 | 66 |
Trunk assessment in girls, sagittal and frontal planes
| Trunk assessment | CMS -10 evaluation | Clinical evaluation | Calculated Chi 2 | Significance level p < 0.05 | Degrees of freedom | Tabular Chi 2 | Hypothesis accepted | Cramer’s V |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyphosis | 37.5 | 0.05 | 2 | 5.9 | alternative | 0.514 | ||
| Accentuated | 43 | 8 | ||||||
| Reduced | 6 | 13 | ||||||
| Normal | 22 | 50 | ||||||
| Total | 71 | 71 | ||||||
| Lordosis | 20.1 | 0.05 | 2 | 5.9 | alternative | 0.377 | ||
| Accentuated | 23 | 7 | ||||||
| Reduced | 22 | 12 | ||||||
| Normal | 26 | 52 | ||||||
| Total | 71 | 71 | ||||||
| Pelvis | 0.3 | 0.05 | 1 | 3.7 | null | 0.042 | ||
| Rotated | 37 | 40 | ||||||
| Not rotated | 34 | 31 | ||||||
| Total | 71 | 71 | ||||||
| Asymmetry | 3.9 | 0.05 | 2 | 5.9 | null | 0.151 | ||
| Shoulder girdle | 52 | 24 | ||||||
| Inferior scapular angles | 42 | 18 | ||||||
| Pelvic obliqueness | 18 | 17 | ||||||
| Total | 112 | 59 |